The thing that most radicalizes people against government is watching what government does.
I watch as government steals property to fund gangs they claim are there to protect your property.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
Diversity for diversity's sake, for appearances, is weakness. It is how your group loses competence. This type of diversity causes division and conflict.
Diversity of things which don't matter, such as race, sex, sexuality, religion, etc., which is what political people mean when they call for a focus on "diversity", is bad for any group. Especially when you reject the healthy kind of diversity in favor of chasing this toxic kind, so you can have a hive mind that all think alike but look/act* different.
I wish it weren't so, especially when the majority is so wrong, but it is. Denying it won't change anything.
If you encourage the healthy kind of diversity, you'll probably wind up with plenty of the people you'd get by focusing on the unhealthy kind. But they'll be more likely to improve your group rather than destroy it from within. That's better for individuals, so it is better for society.
*Act different in matters that don't matter.
It seems counterintuitive… until you’ve encountered a bunch of them over the years. Then you’ll see it’s true.
At some point, usually in the first sentence or two, he's going to try to lump you in with communists, as though this "wins" the argument in his favor. In truth, it's just a sign he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's embracing the same lack of understanding of human nature that the communists do, and he's blind to it.
Statists will tell you people have to be governed. That people will demand to be governed. That without being governed they’ll… well, they’ll do exactly the same things they do while being governed by politicians- flawed people who do the same things the people they govern do. But who generally write rules that pretend that when they do it, it’s not bad because they have "authority".
They're insisting that not being gullible and handing your power to political criminals is "Utopian".
It’s Utopian to pretend this isn’t crazy.
Utopia is not an option. No matter what.
Bad people exist. They always have and always will. The most dangerous of these bad people seek political power. They don't go away because of the widespread belief in government's existence, nor will they vanish if that belief is eradicated. It's Utopian to pretend otherwise.
I've never heard a liberty lover promoting the idea that the world would be perfect if government and its violations to natural liberty were removed from society. Just that it's stupid to give bad guys a veil of legitimacy through "government".
It’s utterly Utopian to pretend government can be “limited”. That it is anything other than a criminal conspiracy. That government is necessary or even good.
As soon as some statist (who will ignorantly deny being a statist and take offense at this character flaw being pointed out) says you’re “Utopian”, you can bow out of the discussion. His opinions can be disregarded. He has told you as clearly as possible that you don't need to take him seriously. He may take himself seriously, but he’s not willing to face reality, including the reality of the depths of his brainwashing. If ignoring him convinces him he's "won", congratulations to him. It's the only "win" he'll see.
Unfortunately, people prefer politics to reality and science.
People prefer politics to morality and their religious beliefs.
They prefer politics to ethics.
People prefer politics to logic, rationality, and consistency.
People prefer politics to liberty.
People prefer politics to respect for natural human rights.
People prefer politics to peace.
People prefer politics over their own best interests, ands over the best interests of others.
This is how you can know politics makes people stupid. It can't possibly be otherwise.
Besides making people stupid, politics usually makes people at least a little bit evil. You can see this by the inevitable outcome of mixing politics with anything.
As I remember the book, when the shaker was finally opened, it was empty. The effect had been psychological all along. (Or maybe it was more ambiguous, but that's what I got out of it. I actually still have the book- I rarely give up books, which is why I have a library in my house. I may read the story again.)
Well, it feels to me like someone put Eversomuch More-so in the chemtrails.
Crazy people have become Eversomuch More-so crazy.
Political criminals have become Eversomuch More-so criminal.
Warmongers have become Eversomuch More-so in favor of wars.
Statists have become Eversomuch More-so statist in their delusions and superstitions.
I'm hoping liberty lovers have (or will soon) become Eversomuch More-so in love with liberty and skeptical of rulers and legislation. It would provide a nice balance to the toxicity around us.
They'll say "we" did this or that thing. Really? They participated? I guess that means they can be held accountable. Right?
Of course, only the losers get held accountable. The winners get to write the "history" and pretend they were the good guys all along. They do it every time.
If you're violating someone's property, damaging it, hurting and killing people who were not posing an individual, credible threat to you or someone else, you're not the good guy.
Funny thing about war- there's often no good guy involved. It's usually bad guys against bad guys. I often don't really want either team to "win". I want both to lose and maybe learn a lesson about being a net negative to the planet. I'm certainly not going to affiliate myself with either side. Why would anyone want to join ranks with any of the bad guys?
Now, if you join with neighbors, defend each other's property from invaders, don't rely on government handouts of weapons, and respect everyone's life, liberty, and property as you defend life, liberty, and property, then you're a good guy. You may not really be engaging in "war", though.
Defenders don't invade the property of others. They don't ignore "collateral damage"- innocent deaths, injuries, and property damage- but take responsibility and do their best to pay restitution. They don't occupy the defeated territory. Cooperation, not collectivism.
And, if you use (or credibly threaten to use) a nuclear weapon, you're definitely not one of the good guys since nukes (and really, any bombs) can never truly be used defensively- there will always be innocent people harmed.
Militias can be used legitimately/defensively. Government militaries apparently can't. That's the nature of government. You may think "government is good"... if you're a moron. I can't believe so many people- not just common political criminals- hunger for war. They really need better hobbies!
It's just a shame I can't exile politicians, government militaries, and their war-hungry fans to a distant moon and let them fight it out without a way to return to Earth if anyone "wins". If you give me that button, I will use it. I'm so tired of their kind.
Someone is obviously trying to turn the public against it. Probably to encourage the public to demand or accept prohibition again.
It isn’t going to work on me, even if I believed all the articles (which I don't). And I don't even use it.
I know heroin has lots of bad health effects, and I’m still against prohibition and punishment for heroin users and addicts.
"Use" doesn't equal "abuse".
And...
Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is evil.
I’ve done better about not asking for donations recently. But I'm running very short right now, and having a tough time financially (and emotionally), and since it's my birthday, this would be a nice birthday gift. I would greatly appreciate it!
Only if you can and want to, though. Otherwise, don't even think about it! Please and thank you.
.
I support everyone's right to protest. If that's your thing, have at it! It's not for me, though. Even when I agree with the stated goals.
"Protesting" doesn't include burning private homes, businesses, or personal vehicles. Or aggressing against people. The quickest way to make me dislike you and shy away from your "cause" is to start archating.
Of course, government "property" is an entirely different matter.
I've been advocating for "No kings" for years. Not for a fraction of a millisecond do I believe that protest would have happened without Trump as president. I'd be willing to make a safe bet that nearly all of those protesters would have been content to stay home as long as the current ruler wasn't Trump. That they aren't against kings/rulers, per se; they just want a different one.
How do I know? Because I've been lectured and scolded by people like that many, many times. They hate and fear liberty and want to be ruled and are angry when I tell them they don't need to be. Now, out of the blue, they have a problem with rulers? Not a chance.
Of course, the military parade was another kind of "protest" that I dislike. I would have avoided that event as well. It was an open display of the intent to archate, paid for by archation. That's not better.
To my way of thinking, if things are bad enough to go protest, they are bad enough to do something real to change things. Either "break" the illegitimate "laws", or fight back against those imposing them. I understand the desire to give tyrants a chance to back off before you go hot, but has that ever worked?
They'll say you must obey every "law" unless and until you can change it. When it is pointed out that it was right to break slavery laws (for example), and it wasn't necessary to wait until the law was changed to free any slaves you could- "illegally"- they'll go into the history of how slavery was supposedly abolished (or expanded to include everyone). Missing the point again, because it is necessary to their beliefs.
When told you shouldn't obey unethical "laws" they'll fall back on "Who gets to decide what's ethical? Ethics is complicated." When told that "ethical" isn't complicated at all, then they'll pull out "So everyone is free to ignore every law they don't like?"
No, everyone is free, or even obligated, to ignore every counterfeit "law"- all those "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property. They also have no right to violate anyone, even if the "law" allows it. Or demands it.
"Law and order" only sounds good if you don't understand that too much order is as deadly as too much chaos. Authoritarian tyrants are good at imposing order, and it's not good for society.
Anyone advocating "Rule of Law" or "Law and Order" is not on the side of liberty. They are choosing tyranny. Are they doing it because they are cowards, or is that a separate problem?
Is it just me, or is the current mood the worst I've seen in a long time? I'm not enjoying it. Not at all. I'm not in a great mood right now anyway, for all sorts of reasons, and this isn't helping.
So many people I agree with on just about everything else have jumped into the statist quicksand over "immigration".
If they just had an issue with government importing people (human trafficking), or with those vandalizing private property and committing other archation, we could agree. But, nope. They've gone full "our borders" communist.
If I think there's hope in getting the person to realize what they're supporting, I may say something. Mostly, I don't try to point out their hypocrisy. It would mess up our alliance on other things after the current hysteria fades.
I hope it fades quickly, because this insanity isn't good for anyone.
He "educated" them that "America is a continent. This country is the United States!".
I guess he's another poor victim of the govschools.
I gently pointed out that the continent is North America, but there's no continent that is simply "America".
I should have gone on to say there's also a South America.
America is this country- the region, the land, resources, people, etc., as set apart according to agreements between political criminals for purposes of plundering without getting in each other's way too much.
The United States [sic] is the government currently ruling over (violating and plundering) the people of America.
No, I never checked back to see how he reacted to this news. Probably exactly as you'd imagine.
RIP Ghost. You were a good boy and I loved you. Thank you for choosing me.
Very few who scream and threaten "law and order" care about Natural Law one whit; they want their counterfeit "law" imposed at the barrel of a gun. They demand a police state so they can have their precious "law and order"! No matter who it kills.
Dead people are quite orderly. "Law and order" fetishists are fine with that if that's what it takes to get the temporary and imaginary safety they seek. This is typical of government supremacists.
Their modern rallying cry is the opposite of Patrick Henry's. They scream, "Screw liberty, Give me legislation and order!"
They are no different than any other archator, including the protesters who violate the life, liberty, or private property during their protests.
I'm sure some people are thrilled about it. I'm not.
I wouldn't really be able to care too much if they were targeting archators; those who violate life, liberty, or property. Government agents are all, by definition, archators, too. In that case, it smells like intergang warfare to me. Not my circus; not my monkeys.
Ignoring government opinions about where you are "allowed" to live isn't archation. Unless you subscribe to the communistic notion that the collective "owns" the "country", rather than the ethical position of "property lines, not government borders".
I'm not brave or foolish enough to go in guns ablazin' to stop the abductions. I'm not proud of that.
And it continues today.
All other holocausts are merely chapters in this one.
We've had the means to end it.