Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Confidence, arrogance, and doubt

I am too confident in some things, and not confident enough in others.

I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that aggression and property violations are something no one has a right to do. In most cases, this means they are wrong. It doesn't matter who is doing it, or what justifications they grasp for in those cases.

I am completely confident in this truth, and that confidence may come across as arrogance. I have been told it does- and have lost friends over it when they want to worship bad guys with government "jobs" and they didn't like where principles led. It is what it is. I could pretend to have doubts about it, but I'd be lying.

In fact, though, I used to be filled with doubts over this. Each time I doubted, either due to an objection I had thought up for myself, or due to an argument someone made against it, I would examine the alternatives or the arguments. And each and every time without exception, those arguments failed. They were self-contradictory or didn't hold up in some other way. I'm not going to pretend a failed idea is valid.

That doesn't mean I won't consider opposing opinions anymore. Of course I will. But each time I do, they still fail. I will continue to give them consideration, whenever someone makes the effort to present them. But I don't expect them to succeed any more than I expect to drop a brick and have it float up and away. Past experience has been a good teacher.

If someone ever makes a reasonable case for aggression or property violations, or if I ever lose a brick to a light breeze, reality will force me to adjust my expectations, and my confidence will be shaken. Again.

Liberty has earned my confidence, and if having confidence in Liberty is "arrogance", so be it. But, I've never been arrogant about myself, regardless of how I come across.

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.

Thursday, June 09, 2016

Why can't statists act civilized?

I can dislike something and still not want government to make or enforce "laws" against it.

I can dislike a person and still not want government or its "laws" used against that person.

I can HATE someone and still object to force being initiated against them or their property being violated. By anyone. Even if I believe they "deserve" it in a karmic sense.

I can like something and still not want you to be forced to fund it.

I can love someone and still acknowledge they are dead wrong if they initiate force or violate private property.

Why can't statists do that?

Instead, they focus on silly things like "respect the office even if you don't like the person holding it". What horrible drivel! The office is the problem. Without that office, the evil fool holding that office couldn't hurt you from behind his veil of imaginary legitimacy. If he violated you, you could defend yourself without having his gang, numbering in the millions, coming after you.

And statists are always looking for ways to justify aggression and theft, even as they object to it if it is used against them. Some even "justify" aggression and theft used against them or their loved ones if they fear calling it what it is (evil) would undermine their arguments for The State.

And, yet, I am still willing to leave statists alone. But they can't seem to return the courtesy. I just don't understand that mindset at all.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Radicalized aggression and cops

Radicalization. Specifically radicalized Islam. That's what a lot of people fear these days.

Radicals can be found in any group, and it's not even necessarily a bad thing to be a radical. It depends what you are radical about.

If you are radical about the Zero Aggression Principle you will be no danger to anyone who isn't a bad guy- and bad guys need to have the cost of doing what they do raised to the point they take a different path.

But, if you are all about aggression and property violations, then being radicalized is never going to be a good thing.

This brings me to cops.

Cops are radicalized "law enforcement".

Cops were never the good guys, and I could never support them, but they got much worse after they became radicalized.

Perhaps "radicalized" isn't the best term for when bullies go full-potato.

Since the problem isn't the radicalization, but that which is being radicalized, maybe the most accurate term would be "aggressionized". Because they have become radical about committing aggression and property violation. Just like the aggressionized Muslims who you'll probably never encounter in real life, but whom you are told to fear.

Aggressionized law enforcement is a much bigger danger to your real life than any other aggressionized group could even hope to be, because they are infesting the countryside at horrific levels. It needs to be stopped.

Cops have been aggressionized, and it is getting worse by the day.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Libertarian society already exists

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 6, 2016)

One of the minor amusements of publicly promoting a society which respects the rightful liberty of each individual are those who object by proclaiming "You're wasting your time. We will never live in a libertarian society."

They are missing the point. We already live in such a society. In fact, if society weren't mostly libertarian, it wouldn't qualify as a society at all.

Almost everyone knows it is wrong to attack or to steal from others. That's all a libertarian society is. People who break these rules face consequences.

The problem is most people carve out an imaginary exception for government employees.

We know theft is wrong, but often look the other way when theft is called "taxation".

We know we shouldn't throw the first punch, but call it "enforcing a law" and most cheer the bully. At least until they find themselves the victim of a wrong-headed "law"- then the artificial line between "law enforcement" and bully is exposed for what it is.

We know it isn't right to trespass or damage our neighbor's home, but if they call the damage "property codes" and pretend there's justification for it, they can get away with almost anything.

It's not right.

The contradictions in these examples would cause discomfort if people actually noticed them, and would cause a change of heart if people who noticed them gave the matter some thought. This is why people try really hard to avoid thinking about it.

That's all I am trying to do: point out the contradictions and get people to think. I don't need to convince you to create a libertarian society- I only need to get you to see you already live in one, and convince you to stop excusing bad guys who refuse to live by the rules and get along.

It would not be up to you to give me a libertarian society to live in, even if societies weren't libertarian already. There will always be those seeking to violate you and your property in any society. Society survives in spite of them. You do what you can to prevent them from violating you, and defend yourself from them when you can. It doesn't matter if they wear a badge, a suit and tie, other "gang colors", or are freelance.

I don't even need to persuade anyone. You already know the truth, you just need to stop hiding it from yourself, and start living like your liberty matters.

The ones you are better than

(Previously posted to Patreon)

"Firefly". Episode: Shindig:

Mal and Jayne; in a coerced meeting with Badger, who is trying to hire them for a new job.

Mal: You backed out of a deal last time. Left us hanging.

Jayne: Hurt our feelings.

Mal: You recall why that took place?

Badger: I had a problem with your attitude is why. I felt you was… what’s the word?

Jayne: Pretentious?

Badger: Exactly! You think you’re better than other people!

Mal: Just the ones I’m better than.

Recognizing you are better than some other people. It happens. In the world of Firefly it can cause problems, and it can do the same in the real world.

How can it be wrong to feel superior to people you are superior to? It might not be "politically correct", but you really are better than some people. In at least some ways, and probably in lots of ways.

You may be smarter, or kinder. You may be more generous. Or, you might be more ethical because you abide by the Zero Aggression Principle. But I guarantee you, in some way you are better than me, and in some way (I hope) I am better than you. And it's the same when any two people are compared. I am not superior or inferior in every way to anyone, and neither are you.

This oddity of not being happy about, or even acknowledging, the ways in which you are "better than" seems harmful to me. If there is nothing better to see and aspire to, then everyone may as well wallow in mediocrity. Never strive to improve.

Personally, I want to be around people who are better than me. I want to learn from them those things where they put me to shame. I hunger for that, and can't understand why anyone wouldn't want the same.

Protecting liberty by destroying liberty?

Gun writer (and generally excellent "gun righter") David Codrea of The War on Guns blog is beating the anti-"illegal immigration" drum loudly these days.

I disagree with him (although I am not intending to pick on him), and here's why.

If you can't have Liberty without having those "borders", then you simply can never have Liberty, period. It means Liberty can never be. It's nothing more than an impossible fantasy that can never exist in the real world.

Maybe that is how it really is. If so, what's the point of even trying? Just batten down the hatches and shoot all who come after you. Which, I suppose, is what borderists are advocating in a way. Or, as the anonymous commenter advocates, "Kill them all and let God sort them out"- 7 billion of "them".

You can have Liberty, or you can have government-enforced "national borders", but not both. They are mutually exclusive. (And "secured borders", and all that goes along with them, are also unconstitutional, but that's another issue.)

If you believe a government's "borders" can protect your liberty by keeping out those who would violate it, you must also believe a person can only be raped by one rapist at a time.

As soon as you have a government large and powerful enough to "secure" those borders, you will have "taxes" being stolen to finance them. You will have the property rights of those along that border being violated as being inferior to the government's imaginary "rights" (some of those violated are fine with that, believing it the preferable violation- or totally blinded by nationalism). You will have the right of association violated. You will have the right to travel unmolested being violated. Where these things are happening, there is no liberty. There is no longer anything to protect.

The big fear seems to be that all those "immigrants" come here and end up v*ting Democratic, and against the right to own and to carry guns. And they might. Especially if they see angry gun owners talking about deportation, prison, and walls, while simultaneously saying they are lazy welfare parasites, and that they "take our jobs".

That is no excuse. You've got to strike at the root.

V*ting on rights, by anyone, is the problem. Rights are never legitimately up for a v*te nor subject to popular opinion. And if someone places your rights on a ballot, or allows a politician to live... I mean, stay in office after he has violated your rights, then that is the problem more than the idiots- regardless of where they were born- who support the violation of human rights through "majority rule".

Instead of making enemies, why not first try to be friends and help them understand why the right to own and to carry guns is their natural, individual right, too? And, if that fails, defend yourself from those who try to violate you without worrying about where they were born.

I can't see how anyone can imagine that being violated by bullies who were born in the same tax farm you were born in is somehow "better" than being violated by bullies born somewhere else.

You can't protect liberty by destroying liberty. No matter how much you wish the opposite were true. And anti-"immigrant" is just as anti-liberty as anti-gun.

(This is my 4000th blog post here. I never suspected I had that many in me.)

Monday, June 06, 2016

Positively imaginary things and their rights

I just read a strange string of words: "A country has the right to..."

Really?

It doesn't matter what the supposed right was, since a collective has no rights and never can.

Rights are purely individual in nature. A collective can't have any rights not held by every individual voluntary member of that collective (and if the group is truly voluntary for each and every member, I don't consider it a collective). And a coercive collective isn't even true cooperation- it is just a big rights-violating party where a few individuals live as parasites on the rest of the individuals.

Those rights held by a voluntary group's individual members don't change one iota due to membership in that group. Disband the group and the rights remain unchanged. The group is completely inconsequential to any rights which the individuals have.

So, no. A country has no rights. The individuals in that country have all the rights, and those rights are almost certainly violated most seriously by the individuals acting on behalf of that imaginary coercive collective they call the "country".

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Right and wrong- them and you

The nature of an act- particularly its rightness or wrongness- doesn't change depending on who is committing the act.

It doesn't matter if you idolize those committing the act or hate them.

If "their" troops are evil for doing it, so are "your" troops. Also, if "your" troops are righteous for doing something, so are theirs. Every person on the planet has equal and identical rights- and no one has the right to do things outside those rights.

Again: Right and wrong don't depend on who does them.

It seems a lot of people don't understand that simple principle.

Saturday, June 04, 2016

Government hurts the poor

If you support The State, you advocate harming the poor. You aren't showing love or generosity, or even concern for their plight. You are acting like you hate them and want to make them suffer.

Government hurts the poor and the "middle class" the most. The rich can afford the added expense and time of jumping over government's hurdles and complying with all its silly demands. They have the money, connections, and power to work around them, or even to use them to their advantage.

The poor don't.

And this isn't the fault of the rich; everyone should do what they can to survive living around a government- as long as they don't use that government to physically attack- or threaten to attack- anyone who has not attacked anybody else, nor to violate their property.

Of course, government also hurts the rich- or at least costs them- but they have enough spare resources to deal with it. They may grumble, and have to waste money protecting themselves from The State, but at least they usually manage. Everything they waste complying with, or avoiding, the State is money and time that won't go into helping others- it is just flushed down the hole that is government. It can't be invested in their businesses, it can't be used to buy products or services from people desperate for more customers, it can't be used to hire people who want a job. It is wasted.

But, the rich survive it.

Not so with the poor.

But what about welfare and minimum wage "laws"? Aren't those there to help the poor?

I would gladly trade all of those "protections" for the liberty of being free of government interference in my life. I'm just saying there's a big difference- a negative difference- between a handout or some "favor" like having wages kept artificially high, and being allowed to improve your own lot in life.

Big government prevents people from earning money the way they are most suited for. If they don't have the required permits and licenses, and if they don't pay the extortion called "taxes" for the privilege of adding value to society, they will be punished. Robbed, caged, or even murdered.

When you help government grow, you are hurting everyone, but you are hurting the poor and the middle class the most.

If you believe you can grow government to help the poor, you are moving backwards. It's like you are helping government to break their legs and then steal a crutch from someone else on their behalf. Support for government isn't just crazy, it's wrong.

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Hope floats, or maybe it dog paddles

In my family I have racists, people on welfare, lots of government employees (mostly in kinderprison jobs), borderists, and generally people who are happy to use the force of the State against those they don't like.

Liberals, neocons, or any other flavor of statist you can imagine. People who despise the force of the state being used against them, but who have no problem siccing the state on others. It drives me nuts.

I have expressed my views to them, but I can't force them to do what I think is right. That would be acting like they act.

Mostly, I simply refuse to be a part of their statist games, and roll my eyes at them a lot. And some of them are actually beginning to move ever-so-slightly in my general direction. It gives me hope.

Wednesday, June 01, 2016

Apologies

I admit I have probably not been the most pleasant person to be around recently. Family, dental/medical, personal, and financial problems just keep coming at me. And the people in my life seem to do their best to make it worse in any way possible. So, lots of stress lately.

I try not to take any of it out on those around me, nor let it color my blog posts, but it probably happens. I apologize for when it does. And I'll try to do better.

Things like this are why when I was a kid I wished I could get rid of emotions. Or at least control them like Mr. Spock or Sherlock Holmes.

To get rid of the bad emotions (or at least the ones that hurt), you'd be giving up the good ones, too. Maybe that's not a good enough trade.

Today I have the first of the dental work I need. Dentists are the closest thing I have to a phobia. I know it isn't sensible, but my brain doesn't always listen to what I know to be true.

Which means I should probably have more pity for statists whose brains don't want to listen to things they should know to be true.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Long past time to reject government

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 28 (?), 2016 )

George Washington may have once said something along the lines of "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Actually, he probably didn't say it. With quotes, though, it doesn't matter who said it as long as it's true.

So, is it true?

No. It most definitely is not true.

When anyone claims government is a servant, they are lying in order to get you to accept the unacceptable. Government-- or more accurately, The State-- is never a servant. If it were, you could fire it and hire a replacement, or choose to do away with the position altogether. If a fire becomes a threat to your life, liberty, and property, you douse it. If you, individually, can't fire government and eliminate it from your life, it's not a servant.

Which leaves us with something admittedly dangerous, and not a servant. A dangerous, fearful master.

Once you learn what goes into making certain foods, you can't unlearn it. Maybe you don't care, or maybe you can get past it, but you'll always know.

It's the same with government. Once you learn what makes a group a "government" you can either ignore it or not let it bother you, but you can't forget.

Cooperation, such as pooling money and labor, mutual defense, and protection of the weak, is good. The moment you add theft and aggression-- the defining characteristics of government-- all the good is gone.

Force and taxation changes governance into government. It poisons everything it touches. It turns restrooms into battlegrounds of "must" and "must not", where everything not prohibited is mandatory. It eliminates private property and self ownership. It turns personal choices into crimes.

Government leaves no room for morality or ethics.

Statists are those who believe governing others is a legitimate activity. To this end they try to confuse you. They know you recognize governance can be good and necessary, so they substitute the degraded form, government, and hope you don't notice their sleight of hand.

Governance includes self control, but self control is never externally imposed. It doesn't enslave. Government, in the form of The State, is always evil. Always harmful. Always a net negative to society.

It's long past time to stop tolerating the dangerous, fearful master others want to impose on your life. Reject government in favor of liberty. Once you use the blunt instrument of government to have your way, you have failed. Why not win instead?

.

My struggle with Rightful Liberty

(Previously posted to Patreon. See what you've been missing? Subscribe today!)

No, it isn't always easy. Sometimes it is a bit of a struggle.

Sometimes I want to punish people. Sometimes I get mad and want to strike out. Sometimes I want to give up. Sometimes I feel the pull of my personal opinions and morals trying to convince me that violating someone else would be OK "just this one time".

When people around me do things I disagree with, things I think might reflect poorly on me, I feel the desire to force them to do what I think is right- but I realize that would be just as wrong as what they are doing. Perhaps even more wrong. Because I know better and they, apparently, don't.

In some ways liberty is so easy. The rules are simple and few: don't initiate force and don't violate the private property of anyone. A child can do it- and most already know the rules.

It takes years of indoctrination to make people forget the rules or believe they don't apply in certain cases. Overcoming that indoctrination, once it has taken hold, it not easy. That may be where all the difficulty lies.

Peer pressure is a powerful force. "Everyone else does it" (justifies aggression and property violation). It would be so simple to fall in line and do the same. No one would blink an eye or judge.

But I know it wouldn't be right. Not for me. For me it is harder to live with myself if I'm doing what I know isn't right than it is living without the approval of statists around me.

However, the Zero Aggression Principle isn't like a law. It doesn't give me excuses to beat you; it is a promise I make to you, telling you what to expect of me. Telling you that if I choose to violate my promise, I know you are justified defending yourself from me.

If you want "easy", maybe life isn't for you after all.

...........................

(If you know someone who might like [or hate with a white-hot seething passion] these posts, please share with them and encourage them to subscribe one way or another.)

.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Reply to a candidate

A candidate for a local office, whom I have met and supported in his brushes with anti-gun "laws", took offense when I said of all the candidates: "...they all believe government should force peaceful people, at gunpoint if necessary, to live the way they think they should."

He responded: "I have no special interests i work for and want goverment [sic] to really start taking care of all the people that have to pay taxes not just a select group. I think the people should be letting the goverment know what they want and need so your represenitives [sic] we elect can work on those problems."

Challenge accepted.

OK. Here is what I want and need from government:

I don't want government to "work for me" or to "take care of" me. I don't need it and certainly don't want it. This is like pretending that the mafia (or the Crips or any other cowardly gang of parasites) will work for me and take care of me, while ignoring that it is based upon theft and aggression- exactly like government is. Nothing good can come of that.

I want there to be no "taxation" committed against anyone. If anyone wants to donate money to government because they think government can spend it better than they can, I have no problem with that. Just don't force your neighbors to fund something that is morally or ethically reprehensible to them.

I want government to leave me (and anyone else who hasn't fallen for the superstitious belief in "authority") alone. I choose to opt out of government's protection racket. I would choose to opt out of its "services" as well- if government didn't enforce its monopoly with the threat of violence.

Don't enforce any "laws" on my behalf and certainly never impose a new one. There are only two kinds of "laws": the unnecessary and the harmful.

I don't need to be represented. And even if I did, it isn't possible for one person to honestly represent multiple others. A politician never represents those who didn't specifically v*te for him- those who v*ted for the other candidate or chose to abstain from v*ting. And most of the time he does things that those who did v*te for him don't want him to do. Representation is fiction.

Government can't solve problems. It can make them worse, shuffle them around, or it can get out of the way. I've never seen politicians choose to get out of the way.

And those things are never on the ballot. No matter who you v*te for (or against) you are propping up the myth that governing others is a legitimate activity.

I have no doubt that you and some others have the best of intentions when they seek to become part of government- I've been there myself. However, a good person changing government from the inside is about as likely as a good person changing the KKK from the inside. Which is more likely to be changed, the good person or the evil organization? I wouldn't ever v*te for someone I thought was a good person because I wouldn't condemn him or her to that fate.

It took me years to figure this out, so I don't expect anyone to read this and suddenly "get it". But really consider these things I've said.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Teeth and dentists

If anyone can help, and wants to help, with my medical bills and especially with the dental work I am needing now, please either donate or share this with people who might. It's my GoFundMe page.

Added: I get more of any contributions if they come through Paypal (PayPal.Me/Dullhawk).

.

When we disagree, somebody is wrong (it might be me)

If I don't agree with you, I'm going to think you are wrong. That's pretty much what not agreeing with you means.

If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't disagree with you- not for long. I'd change my mind and then I'd agree with you.

So, yeah, obviously if we disagree I pretty much have to believe you are the one who is wrong. That's just the only way that can work.

If it matters that I think you are wrong, use reason to change my mind and get me to agree with you, or use reason to see that you were wrong and change your mind. (Here's a hint, though: not all opinions are equally valid, even if we really want to believe them).

Don't appeal to your feelings or emotion, because that may make me feel bad, but it will do nothing to make me think you are right.

Getting angry about any of this is pointless. Don't get angry, get convincing.

Saturday, May 28, 2016

At times like this...

... I suspect I took the wrong path.

I should have dedicated myself to making money above all else. Because at times like this, money seems to be all that matters. I screwed up.

I need to fix it.

I could stop giving away any of my writing for free, and put it all on Patreon or by subscription only, but I suspect that those who would pay to read what I write, already do. I may try it though, because I've got to do something.

Household income dropped to almost nothing for about four months, and due to Unfortunate Truth #3, even that amount was cut substantially.

I have two critical things that I need vast amounts of money for in the immediate future, one dental and one house-related, and GoFundMe just isn't working (apparently you need to be an injured "hero" like a veteran or cop, or a dying child, for GoFundMe to work- I'm none of those, nor would I want to be). I have past medical bills that have been sent to collection agencies, and I have more expenses (such as car repairs) that I know are coming. The money just isn't there.

I see how "easy" the money comes for all my family who work in government, and I understand why they refuse to see that working for The State in any capacity is unethical. When you have a choice between being in my financial position and being in theirs, I can see how ethics can be an inconvenient annoyance to be ignored at all cost, and how morals can be plastic and molded to fit the situation. I sometimes wish it were that easy for me. I realize that not everyone who is doing well financially has a government, or otherwise unethical, job. Just the majority of the ones I know personally.

Asking readers to pay for writing doesn't seem to work. The same people keep being the ones who pony up, and even mentioning money in a blog post- as I often end up doing- makes me feel sick. And from comments I have received, I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I know I am not the only one having this trouble. I see so many friends on the edge of financial disaster, and more fall over that edge every day. That only makes me wish I had even more money, because I desperately want to help them- and I know they would do the same for me if only their situation were better. But here we are.

I have obligations that prevent me from taking most "normal" jobs. I need to be able to continue taking care of my daughter, after all. I won't relegate her to "latchkey kid" status. But "taking care" of her also requires money, not just my physical presence and support. Finding some way to bring in more money, while being able to do what I have to do, seems hopeless. I won't do "MLM", and I lose money as a salesman every time I get myself into that sort of thing. I certainly can't afford that again.

If I try anything in the Black Market (or even the Gray Market), I will not have support of anyone in my house. It could easily result in me not even having a house.

I'm about at the end of my rope, though.

A few years ago I had a friend who made money with everything he touched. He never could understand why some people (such as myself) had trouble making money. He said it was so easy... but he could never explain it. He said the way to make money is "you just make money". I did notice that he started out every new venture with a lot of money, put it to work, and then made lots more, and I wonder how he would have done starting from nothing, without the connections he had. But, being nice, I never questioned him about that, nor would I have wanted to see him in that position if it would have meant him failing. I am not one of those people who wants to see others fail just because I do.

I apologize for the negative tone of this post. I couldn't sleep with all this weighing on me and got up to write this. It was probably yet another mistake. But now you know.

.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

An upsetting truth

It happened again. And therein lies a lesson: If you say something someone doesn't want to hear, they will get upset.

It doesn't matter if it's the truth, an opinion, or a lie. All that matters is that they don't want to hear it.

Of course, often the truth will make them strike out the worst, because a flawed opinion or a lie can easily be countered with truth, but the only thing a person upset by the truth can do is... well, something crazy.

If the truth is that your heroes are individuals committing deeply evil acts, you need to let go of your heroes, not get upset at the truth. And that truth is upsetting to many people.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Choosing your designated mugger

(A Patreon/subscriber-only post)

If you were to think of "the town drunk", you probably have someone in mind. If that person died, would you want to help choose the next one? Or might you think the position is expendable?

What about those who do real harm? There are all sorts of violators in your town- you probably know some of their names. Does the individual violator's identity matter, or is their aggression or property violation the critical part? What if you were asked to help choose the town mugger, or rapist, or murderer, or child molester? (Subscribe to read the rest)

Arbitrary rules

Arbitrary rules are OK for games, but destructive for life.

I mean, really, there is no rational reason to "Pass Go- collect $200". It makes the game work in a consistent way, but the rule, at its foundation, is arbitrary. And no one will force you to play if you don't like the rules.

"Speed limit- 60 MPH" is also an arbitrary rule. A rule you might be murdered for ignoring. Traveling at 59 MPH is in no way more ethical than traveling at 61 MPH. It isn't wrong to simply "speed". The rule is arbitrary in every way. However, you really have no ability to opt out, since the bullies who claim the roads are going to steal from you to pay for the roads and to hire their highwaymen to patrol and rob travelers whether you consent or not.

Saying alcohol is "legal" (sort of, under certain circumstances) and Cannabis is "illegal" is completely arbitrary. You can also be murdered for breaking that counterfeit rule.

I don't mind arbitrary rules that I can opt out of. But I despise ridiculous arbitrary rules it's possible to be murdered over. And, of course, all "laws" are enforced by death. The State's arbitrary rules are evil. Enforcing them is always wrong.

KentForLiberty pages