Justifying your preferences

As a libertarian, you can be religious or atheist or environmentalist or vegetarian or whatever- and that's fine... but don't use libertarianism as justification. Because libertarianism has nothing to do with any of those things.

Don't initiate force against another human being. Respect the rights and the property of other people. Minimum government; maximum liberty. And within those bounds, the sky's the limit.

.

Government empowers Big Evil

The vast majority of people recognize evil acts when they see them. Unfortunately for civilization, the majority of people tend to also have faith that The State exists to prevent evil acts from getting out of control and overrunning the planet.

What those people don't seem to understand is that the greatest evils can only be maintained by government, or through the belief in government and the acceptance of the ways and methods of government.

By believing that government, The State, is the solution to great evil, they empower those individuals most likely to cause great evil. It needs to stop.

.

"No Man an Island" by Kent McManigal

No Man an Island (Original link and comments)

They say “no man is an island”, and that we all need other people for support. Especially when things go wrong. Sometimes it helps to have the right kind of support.

Several years ago I woke up in a really bad situation. Through bad choices, and bad people seeking to harm me, I one day found myself in the position that my wife was telling me to get out of my house within 24 hours. She was moving her boyfriend in, and he intended to beat me up if I was still at the house when he arrived.

I was living 1500 miles from the nearest family member, having moved across the country at the urging of my wife. I did have some local friends, but most of them were not in a position to do too much to help, and I hesitated getting them involved since I felt it would show them what an idiot I had been. They had rescued me from my wife once before on short notice (that time she had actually called someone and told them to come get me or she would kill me) and I was embarrassed that I was in trouble again and that the situation was even worse this time.

At the time I was just trying to avoid having to shoot anyone. Seriously, I didn't want to be forced into killing anyone in self-defense- especially when I knew the confrontation was coming. It has always been my intention to get out of the way of violence when I can. However, I had no intention of walking away from all my possessions and letting my wife and her new boyfriend have them. She had already pretty much cleaned me out by buying the house with my money and then refusing to put my name on it. I had asked her for some time- a week or so- to find a place and get out. She laughed and said I had better be gone by the next night. Then she left to drive a few hundred miles to pick up this guy she had met online.

So, I scrambled and put a key lock on my bedroom door, hid any valuables that I could, and did something really stupid: I got a "protection from abuse" order from the local court. I should have known better (actually, I did know better, but I panicked) and it didn't turn out well. Even the local cop I knew told me it was a stupid thing to do- as soon as he found out I had done it. I was also warned, by the sheriff, that "every woman" who had a "protection order" filed against her will turn around and "cross file" in retaliation- and she did. This resulted in the sheriff showing up at the house demanding all my weapons- right at the time I needed them most. I even pointed this ironic fact out to him, but he said "it is The Law". Use you imagination to decide whether he got them all or not. All in all, the protection order did keep my wife and her boyfriend away from me while I found a place to live, but things could have been handled better, and with fewer entanglements and ongoing problems, had other options been readily available on short notice. Plus, the boyfriend turned out to be so afraid of me I doubt he would have done anything.

Fast forward a few years.

I was living with someone I had discovered to be a liar who was out to hurt me and anyone I cared about. I fled with nowhere to flee to and with almost no money. I slept in my car and in the woods. I showered at friends' houses when I could, and ate what I could find. The person I fled from harassed my friends and my family, relentlessly trying to track me down and get everyone to pressure me to go back to her. Finally, under pressure and with no good options, I gave up and went back. Defeated and broken, with my family thinking the worst of me due to some very detailed and graphic lies (along with forged documentation).

I'm still dealing with the consequences of both of these messes.

Unfortunate Truth #1 is "People are idiots" and no one exemplifies this truth better than me. However, no one who is being abused should have to face that alone, idiot or not.

How would things have turned out in those situations had there been a way I could have called for backup? Would I have even gotten into the second situation had the first turned out better? What if there had been people I could call for legal advice and help as well as physical assistance when I so desperately needed it?

I'll never know what would have happened back then, but there is a way to make sure you have access to that kind of back up from now on.

Personal stupidity isn't the only bad thing that can happen in today's messed up world. Simply standing up for what is right- for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness- can put you in the position of needing specialized help ASAP.

Think about it: How much more bold would you be in "living your liberty" if you knew someone had your back in case of a run-in with The State? Would you say "No" to agents of The State more readily? Would you be more willing to stand up for what is right?

When activists like Pete Eyre and Ademo Freeman strike out on one of their road trips to spread the word about liberty they seem to always run into enforcers or other pro-State extremists who are frothing at the mouth in anticipation of making an example of them for not "properly" kow-towing to the "authority" of the badge or the robe. Fortunately each time this happens people know about it immediately and are able to at least keep an eye on the situation to make sure no abuses can go unnoticed.

But what happens if some power-drunk enforcer corners YOU late one night far from family and friends?

Few of us are well-known liberty activists who have networks of people ready to lend a hand if needed. In all probability if you or I had a run-in with what passes for "The Law" in these Police States of America, no one but our family would know about it until the crisis had passed and we were able to tweet our adventure to the world. What if you had a way around that? Well, you do.

Individual Sovereign University has created the Sovereign Mutual Aid Rescue Team project: SMART (or the "University Association" as it is officially known). It is a subscription service that can help with raising bail and various other unpleasant but necessary defensive measures. And that isn't all they offer if you join the association. Visit their site and also read this list of planned services.

By way of disclosure, It is possible I may get paid for writing about this, but I refuse to buy into the common statist delusion that there is something dirty about making money. Paid or not, I'd write this anyway. As painful as the personal disclosure has been, I want you to avoid the mistakes I have made and I want you to have a plan, and be SMART, when things do go wrong.

.

Enemy of The State

The State is not MY enemy, I am The State's enemy. The State is the enemy of Liberty and all those who understand it. I did not go looking for a fight; The State brought the fight to me when it declared me and all the things that I value to be its enemy. The State started the fight and declares that any who defend themselves from its attacks are "terrorists".

The State seeks to shift the blame. It is digging itself into a hole it will not be able to climb out of. The State and all those who support or worship it are fools.

Unfortunately for them, The State is not real. Not in the way you and I are real. It is just a name given to a bunch of cowardly, thuggish, parasites who band together so that they can steal, rape, kidnap, murder, and otherwise do things that would get them killed if they didn't have a gang backing them up. The time is coming when that gang will not be enough. People would be wise to abandon The State before it is too late. If it isn't already.

.

Libertarianism and Violence?

"Love it or leave it" is the cry of the genocide enabler. This is the point I made that caused someone tell me to "piss off", because he had just tossed that "pearl" at me.

I was commenting on a blog entry that was trying to confuse the issue of violence and aggression and insult libertarians by association with that confusion. People don't understand what they don't want to understand.

I pointed out that I don't mind paying for what I use, I just don't want to pay for "services" I don't want (and I don't want anyone else to unwillingly pay for anything on my behalf, either). A government monopoly is wrong. (Unless he deletes my earlier comments, you can read the exchange up to the point where he flaked).

Anyway, the blogger said "You don't want to pay for US government services? Leave the US." I pointed out that this was the mantra of the genocide enabler (he deleted that comment), and told him I wasn't obligated to leave all I had worked for, or my friends and family, by walking away and handing everything over to the bad guys.

So, he wrote this: "Ok, Kent, piss off. Allowing you to air your quirky views here is one thing, but when you start throwing around insane insults implying that anyone who thinks taxes are legitimate is into genocide, you are done."

It isn't me who is "insane", Gene. After all, you can justify anything, not just counterfeit "laws" and "taxation", by saying "if you don't like it, leave". If you don't like the fact that the local government is killing your friends and family "get out!". Don't defend yourself from the bad guys; don't point out that what they are doing is wrong. Just leave. Just leave so that they can continue doing evil. What kind of "philosophy" is that?

People who delete comments show their fear. They show their weakness and their understanding of the weakness of their argument. I have never deleted one comment that wasn't obvious spam, other than a few comments made by a rather tweaked individual who insisted that his comments be deleted.

The truth hurts, Gene. Suck it up.

.

A "libertarian society"?

When someone asks for an example of a libertarian society, and is told of one, he usually rejects the example because what he is really wanting is an example of a "libertarian state". I deal with that bizarre notion elsewhere.

Dictionary.com defines "society" in this way:

1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.

3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.

4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.

5. such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.

So, by definitions 1, 2, and 5 I do live in a libertarian society. I even live in a libertarian society according to definition 4, if you don't emphasize the "highly structured" part too much. Structured, yes. Highly structured, probably not. And that isn't a weakness, but a strength.

I'm still not sure about definition 3. I doubt there is any such thing as "human society" since beyond the biological and psychological basics there is no singular "society" that is common to all humans. Yet, in day-to-day interactions, humans do generally behave in a libertarian (and even anarchist) manner. Otherwise no one would be able to get along at all; everyone would just be stealing, attacking, and shoving each other around every time they encountered another person. Civilization, not to mention "society", would come crashing down.

So, yes, I do live in a libertarian society. Of my making and of my choosing. Those who don't attack me will not be attacked by me. My libertarian society is surrounded by a parallel (and inferior) society that is based upon coercion, but that is not my society. I am not a part of it, even as I must deal with it. The disease is not me.

.

A "libertarian country"?

Asking for an example of a libertarian state is like asking to be shown a feline ostrich.

It just shows you don't get it.

(Now, if you wanna talk about a "libertarian society"...)
.

So full of FAIL...

Sometimes I read a blog that is just so full of fail I don't have the energy to keep pursuing it. I'm not sure yet if this is one of those times or not...

I've learned so much recently about the Somali customary law that things like this really grate on me. (Thanks, MS. ;) )

Then when they talk about other things they don't understand on top of that, well, the task becomes gargantuan. Plus, if all they pride themselves on is "snark", then I understand they aren't serious to begin with and further commentary is pointless.

.

Invite others to Libertopia

If you like my positive take on a libertarian future in Dispatches from Libertopia, please help me spread it around. It is getting pathetically few views, and I hate to think negativity is more popular than showing how a free society could work.

.

Don't shoot your monitor

Almost every single time I get angry enough at the computer (for some malfunction, not for internet content) that I want to start cussing and smashing things, the first instinct is to smash the monitor or keyboard, yet those are not usually the parts of the computer causing the problem. They are just the parts I am interacting with.

I think The State is the same way. Most of us want to smash the parts of The State we see interfering with our life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, when the real problem is the bad guy behind the scenes operating in safety.

Yes, cops and bureaucrats have worked long and hard to earn our well-deserved contempt, but the hidden parasites behind the scenes need to face consequences, too.

.

Conservative is NOT libertarian

I have noticed that many "liberals" try to attack libertarianism by laying out a "conservative" position, calling it the libertarian position, and then attacking it.

Sometimes there is some superficial resemblance (if you only have the intelligence of a liberal, that is), but often there is no resemblance at all. It just makes the "liberal" look silly. And then they start making faces and calling you names when this is pointed out to them.

.

Too much time spent on problems

Too much time spent on problems

(My CNJ column of July 1, 2011. As submitted, not as published.)

I enjoy solving problems. Not abstract puzzles as much as real-life situations, although the occasional puzzle can sometimes be fun, too. This does not mean I like having problems arise that need to be solved, or that I enjoy people who intentionally cause problems for me. Enough little things crop up spontaneously to provide ample entertainment without any help.

I recognized this personal quirk back in high school. I was at a friend's house when her mom put a package of hot dog buns in the microwave to warm. The metal twist-tie was still on the package and it burst into flame. OK, so the "flame" was like a tiny birthday candle flame, but from her reaction you would never have guessed that. While she ran in circles, wringing her hands and yelling about the fire, I simply opened the microwave and blew out the flame. Problem solved. It felt good.

This part of my nature fits well with my libertarianism. It is fun to see the liberty-respecting solution, which violates no one's rights, that others studiously ignore. It is also amusing the see the contortions that people go through trying to put objection after objection in the way of solving a problem.

Some people are very invested in, almost married to, their problems. They would prefer to complain, or at best, find a partial "solution" that creates more problems downstream than to strike at the root of the matter. They also refuse to admit that most real solutions are very simple compared to the alternatives of letting the problem grow larger, or of building a Rube Goldberg contraption, based upon more coercion and State control, that "solves" the problem in gloriously complicated and prone-to-fail ways. Different strokes for difficult folks. (note to editor: not a typo- I intended to write "difficult folks" there)

It isn't critical to me that people accept the solutions that I find either. Their problem; their life. I still get the benefit of the mental exercise that solving the problem provides. Only when the problem directly impacts me in a way I can't avoid does the solution become personal. Most of the time it is enough that I can see a way out that others haven't noticed.

.

Liberty Book Bomb

If you are so inclined to still believe that you can "work within the system" to increase Liberty, then here is a suggestion: send your favorite candidate or squatting politician (or is that "sitting politician"?) a copy of one of my books.

I would primarily suggest Problem? Solved!, but judging from experience I suspect their intellectual development might be more equipped to handle Indy Pindy, The Liberty Mouse. On the other hand, Kent's Liberty Primer might be good for a Ruler or prospective Ruler with a more mature mind, but a relatively short attention span. Tao Liberty Ching would probably be good for those who have no attention span at all and can only think in sound-bite sized servings. Or those with a more philosophical bent. If all else fails and you still want to inflict me on some politician, or if you have no complaints with the direction he/she seems to be leaning, you could send them Sandy's Legacy.

This way you could help yourself by spreading the liberty meme while also helping me. You might even help that politician become a productive individual rather than a parasite.

.

Trolleys, switches, and choices

I'm sure you have all heard of the "trolley scenarios", where you choose whether to do nothing and watch a runaway trolley kill five innocent people, or throw a switch to divert the trolley onto some tracks where it will kill "only" one innocent person, or alternatively, you could toss a sufficiently massive innocent bystander onto the tracks to stop the trolley, thus killing him to save the five.

Now, the versions I had previously been exposed to supposed that all the people were standing where they stood of their own free will. The link above suggests they have all been tied to the tracks by another person.

I'll look at those circumstances separately.

In the case of no one being tied to the tracks, the 5 people made the choice to stand where they stand, as did the one on the other tracks. Perhaps the one was smarter in his choice. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to sacrifice him because others made a bad choice and he did not. Not that standing on any tracks at any time seems particularly wise to me.

I do believe you have a responsibility to be aware of your surroundings. Failure to do so, staying in "condition white", as they say, has consequences.

I would do my best to alert everyone, and send the trolley down the tracks least likely to have anyone standing on them by the time the trolley got there.

I do not believe it would be right to toss an innocent bystander onto the tracks to save "the five", because, once again he was not among those unwisely standing on tracks. Let natural selection weed out people who stand around on trolley tracks in "condition white". OK, maybe that's a little harsh, but if you weren't present to intervene, nature would take its course anyway.

Since I don't believe rights are additive, I don't think 5 people have more rights than one. Pick any individual among the 5 and he is equal to the one. It's like saying it is "more wrong" to kill one individual five times than to kill him once. Each person only dies once and that applies to each of the six individuals in this scenario. I also don't believe in the notions of "greatest good", "general welfare", or "common good"- especially as applied to scenarios like this.

What if all the innocent people are tied to the tracks? I wouldn't waste time flipping switches or pushing people onto the tracks, I would be working to defeat the Kobayashi Maru scenario without violating the ZAP. If nothing else, self sacrifice by jumping on the tracks would be right, while pushing someone else onto the tracks would not. If the victims are tied to the tracks, is there anyone who can cut the ropes? Who are they nearer; the 5 or the one? If halfway between they could probably free one person faster than 5 so sending the trolley toward the one has a higher chance of saving everyone.

In reality there are always 3rd options. And often 4th and 5th. Why not send the trolley toward the one or ones who are most likely to be able to jump clear or be rescued by a bystander? Why not shout a warning? It is an artificial constraint to claim you can only do A or B. I think that pretty much invalidates any "answers" arrived at.

These sorts of philosophical questions are contrived to make you feel bad.

Just follow the ZAP and you'll do OK.

.

My mom on the news...

My mom on the news about a local problem: Link

And the better solution: Railroad Crossing- Look out for the cars...

.

Who's cramming their lifestyle on "society"?

I really have to wonder about some people.

Like the writer of this first letter to the editor. She says, regarding homosexuals,

"Every time the rest of society turns around, this lifestyle is crammed down our throats." Really? Let's look at that contention a bit more. In fact, let's compare the homosexuals with- oh, let's say, the Christians.

Which group has dozens of buildings in this particular town, and at least one or two buildings in every town in the country, dedicated to exposing (and converting) everyone else to their lifestyle?

Which group has articles (usually, several) extolling the virtues of its lifestyle in every edition of the very paper this letter to the editor appears in?

Which group has billboards and signs all over this area which cram their lifestyle down the throats of every traveler on the highway? Some warning of eternal damnation if you reject becoming a member of this group!

Which group has so much influence over the political system that it has gotten laws made that don't simply protect its members from discrimination (counterfeit "laws", by the way) but that actually force, by "law", everyone to follow the beliefs of that group as if the beliefs were their own?

Which group sends out recruiters that go door to door to try to convince you to become one of them or face dire consequences?

Which group targets young children with fun activities and social opportunities (often in those buildings they put all over town) in order to train the children to become one of them from such an early age that they won't think about it?

Think about it. Which group is really the one which more accurately fits the complaint that "Every time the rest of society turns around, this lifestyle is crammed down our throats"?

I don't suggest that either group be silenced, but I do think the letter writer needs to remove the mote from her eye before she starts poking at the eyes of others. And everybody ought to just get over the fact that someone, somewhere is going to offend you, just as YOU offend someone.

(I realize that both "demographics" contain various factions, and neither homosexuals or Christians are monolithic "groups", but are made of individuals who each behave very differently from one another.)

.

Don't let politicians be responsible

Don't let politicians be responsible

(My CNJ column for June 24, 2011. I admit the headline they wrote for me bewilders me completely and totally. As written, not as published.)

Believe it or not, I don't care about politics. I would like a world where it is safe to ignore politics completely if you have better things to do, or more concrete concerns. That isn't the world we live in, much to our detriment.

Many people still think it is OK to join together to make up rules for other people to obey, or to impose "taxes" for them to pay. This, unfortunately, makes it necessary for the rest of us, if we care about paying and obeying, to sometimes band together to try to stop the rules from changing so that we don't become criminals or to prevent having more of our life, liberty, and property stolen from us in the name of "The Common Good". It is "politics in self defense" and it is a tragic waste.

Paying attention to the political debates surrounding an election is almost painful. Listen to politicians debating among themselves as they propose to violate the liberty of some segment of the population that they hope a majority of voters dislikes. This sleight-of-hand is calculated to focus your attention on "the others" while your liberty is dismantled. You are always someone else's "other". Disagreeing on details of how to violate you, as candidates invariably do, is not a disagreement of substance, but of method.

Respecting liberty to any degree is never seriously suggested, except minimally by the one GOP candidate who has little chance of being elected, and who wouldn't be able to make a real change if he were elected, due to the constraints of the system. Everyone knows who this candidate is- he consistently wins polls, but the polls are regularly misreported in order to marginalize his candidacy and promote the status quo. CNN and Time Magazine (online) were both caught red-handed doing this very thing in the past week.

Politicians get votes by playing on people's prejudices and fears, not by telling them that they are responsible for their own lives. They can also get votes by promising to take something from someone who is unpopular and give it to someone whose vote they are courting. That "something" may be liberty or it may be money. Without those two tactics, a candidate will get too few votes to win.

There is no one alive who has the authority or right to represent another person without an explicit agreement being reached between the two individuals involved. A Constitution that neither party physically signed doesn't count as an explicit agreement, regardless of what you've been told. Moreover, those who vote for the losing candidate are not bound by the results no matter what, since they then have no representation at all, legitimate or not. So take responsibility for yourself and get on with the things that matter in your life. Withdraw consent.

.

Turnabout is fair play

A friend of mine is having problems with a scammer.

They have gotten hold of her number and other information somehow (yes, probably through carelessness on her part, but that's not the point) and they are calling her many times every day trying to scare her into sending them money.

They claim to be with some company (or government office) - "National Bureau of Crime Investigation" blah-blah Criminal something-or-other" ... I have listened to the messages and can't make out much of what they are saying because of their very heavy accents- that she owes $695 to, or they are collecting on behalf of the creditor. Once again, I can't understand what they are saying. They won't give her any paperwork or documentation until after she pays- by credit card or Western Union, of course. They are claiming that they have issued a warrant for her arrest and keep saying she had better pay to prevent more bad consequences.

Obviously, this is not a legitimate collection action.

I have done a tiny bit of research and it seems the phone number is a landline out of Alameda California... but... it is routed through a "Magic Jack" so who knows where they are really calling from.

Here's the fun part: If you want to call and harass some scammers, their number is 510-473-4959. Turnabout IS fair play. Right? Obviously BLOCK your number before calling!

UPDATE: They just called twice more. I spoke to him myself and he is one nasty character. He claims his name is Robert (or Richard) Morgan, by the way.

More info: Here is what other people are saying about these clowns: LINK

.

"The Debt Ceiling! Raise it or DIE!!!!!" Updated.

More silliness. Go read, if you feel like it.

And, in the meantime, here is the comment I just posted there:

Dale- You say a lot without understanding what you are saying.

The US is a republic, not a democracy. But both are "tyranny of the majority". I do not consent to the violation of my worst enemy's rights. I do not consent to "governing" him. This doesn't make me "helpless". Withdraw consent and stop being a part of the problem.

I just want to have the cake I baked, so that I can eat and share it, voluntarily, as I see fit. Statists are the ones who want everyone else's cake, to eat without baking their own. If I didn't bake a cake I have no problem buying one from someone else. Pay for what I use, and use only what I pay for. Once again, completely unlike collectivists of whatever stripe.

I can't make civilization by myself, as you say I think I could, but I also know it takes individuals to make civilization, not institutions that feed on theft.

And yes, I am sorry but when you take something through force of threat of force ("arrest", "fines", garnishment, etc.) that belongs to an individual, when that individual would rather not give it up, it is theft. Even if you have a piece of paper saying you have the authority to do it. You can pretend otherwise all day long but it doesn't change the foundational act one iota.

One old furniture-abusing criminal in a black dress was once quoted as saying "taxes are the price we pay for civilization". He had it backwards. Civilization is what humans manage to create in spite of the parasites that feed off the productive people.

Nice job with the personal insults based upon your perception of my appearance. I'm sure it takes a "higher education" to be that childish.

If you knew anything about Somalia (beyond what you are told by other government-extremists), you would see that the Somalis are pretty good people (other than the remnants of the former government- the "Warlords"- who are still around the population centers doing their best to continue to act like a functioning State- murder, kidnapping, theft, and all).

Added Update:

Want more? He replied, so I added this comment (I put it here just in case he stops approving my comments):

"...You just fling out the same slogans over and over again without engaging with anything I ever say..."

Exactly the same could be said about you. I do address your points, you simply won't face reality. You deny that an act is the same no matter who is doing it, or what costume they wear.

"...the tea-tard GOP is the closest you ever get to your libertopian dream..."

Hardly. They are not pro-liberty any more than you are. They want a theocracy where homosexuals, drug users, Muslims, "illegal immigrants" (sic), and anyone else who doesn't do what they want is punished. They support unending Empire and "bringing democracy" to people across the globe, even if they have to kill people to save them.

If you think this even remotely resembles a free society, then I don't know what to say to you.

As for the rest- the more you write the more you expose your utter lack of understanding what you write about. As one example: "...The self-nominated 'producers' appropriate the historical archive, the commons, their indebtedness to their fellows (usually derided as 'parasites,' as gentle Kent would have it) and then pretend they create these goods as rugged individuals..."

Those who produce are not parasites. Those who feed off of the production of others, through "taxation" or appropriation of other property, ARE parasites. People who do this are not my "fellows". I do not pretend I have created this civilization (I already told you this). It takes a great many people, each accomplishing something, to make a civilization. It does not take people confiscating the things the productive people are producing. What is your definition of theft, if it varies so much from mine that "taxation" doesn't qualify?

" "We are all caught in an escapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny."

Absolutely! But mutuality does not require coercion or theft. It does not EVER require a State.

"... there is no perfect "planned" allocation of a more just distribution..." Right, because you can't "plan" an economy; it just happens through the individual decisions made by each individual person who decides if they want item A more than they want item B. This is perfectly just, and any interference with their individual decisions is completely unjust.

"...the sensible (sic) progressive taxation of those who benefit most from society..." Those you claim "benefit most from society" are those who benefit society the most. By your "progressive taxation" you remove incentives for them to create jobs and innovations.

"...should fund those general welfare programs which function to ensure that the scene of consent to enterprise be as genuinely informed and nonduressed as may be..."

And exactly how do these "general welfare" (no such thing) programs ensure that? No one has the necessary information to make that decision on the behalf of everyone else. You are being Utopian. It is a statist trait.

And More!!

"...you and a few of your superior white skinned superhuman friends..."

What does skin color have to do with anything? Are you racist?

"...the rest of us billions of subhuman parasites to serve you..."

Parasites do not serve, they take. And, fortunately, the productive humans outnumber, vastly, the parasites. Even some people, acting as minor parasites, are still producing more than they are taking. Probably very few people are "all parasite" or "all producer" anymore. That's a shame. When that changes and more are taking than producing, your Utopian People's Democratic Kleptocracy will collapse.

"...I think you are far too dangerously stupid to waste time talking to, and apparently you think the same, which is pretty much how I think it should be given how very low an opinion I have come to form of you by now..."

I don't think that of you at all or I would have stopped talking. I don't have a low opinion of you; I have a low opinion of the ideas you have bought in to.

"...and you can build your internment camp for me (did I say death camp? I meant happy camp)..."

That would violate my principles. I have no problem allowing people to choose to live in any sort of voluntary society they choose. Even outright communist, if that makes them happy. As long as they allow those around them to opt out without forcing those people to leave their homes, families, and friends. The difficulty I keep observing is that statists rarely reciprocate, but insist it is their way or the highway. To me that is not civilized behavior.

"...you can wave your your big gun around..."

That would be irresponsible and I don't do that. There are rules to the safe handling of firearms, and that violates them all.

"...Kent is far too deep down the Randroidal rabbit hole..."

While I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, I am most definitely NOT an Objectivist or a "Randroid".

"...the GOP spouts many of your anti-government anti-tax anti-civilization slogans..."

The GOP is not any of those things. They LOVE "taxes" as long as they get to use them to pay for "border patrol" or the military or their farm subsidies, or whatever other big government program they like. And they like a lot of them. Now, I just think the GOP has a different idea of civilization than I do, as do you, but I don't see them (or you) as anti-civilization. You just advocate some things that make civilization a lot harder to maintain, and more fragile.

"...as close as you will ever get to seeing any materialization of any of your world view..."

Really? I am seeing it now. In my own life. Just because my neighbor might not respect my liberty doesn't mean I seek to violate his.

There will always be bad guys trying to harm their fellow man. Right now the majority work for The State, but if you can't be free under a State, you couldn't be free in a free society either. Someone will always provide you an excuse to act like a slave.

"...these are lives being smashed..."

This is why it is important for people to understand that government gives power and false legitimacy to the worst of those who seek to do the smashing, without the risk of being a freelance thug. Yes, it is real; it is happening now. And it is completely unnecessary.

But you are right, this is not a high school debate. Keyenesian "economics", just for one example, is destroying lives even now. And because statists are caught in the trap of thinking this way, the disaster is being "solved" by doing even more of the same that caused it in the first place. People are dying due to this sort of delusion.

"...they are pampered and insulated from the consequences of their maurading and mistakes and waste..."

Those who do the "maurading" are among the parasites and will get no sympathy or assistance from libertarians. Those who make mistakes can be helped by charity (a libertarian concept) better than by welfare. And those who waste might be helped once or twice, but if they don't learn, then life will be very rough. I believe you are projecting again.

"...defining as "coercion" and "threat" plenty that does not deserve the designation in my view..."

Coercion is making someone do something they don't want to by using physical force, or the threat thereof, or by using deceit to get them to do what you want.

A threat is making known your intention to use coercion. A legitimate threat is when that intention has been made and the one making the threat has the ability to carry it out.

Theft is taking property, through coercion, threat, or deceit, that belongs to another, because he traded his time or other property in order to obtain it, when that person would rather not give it to you.

"People who share the world are actually different from one another, they have different capacities and different aspirations."

Exactly! That is why "one size fits all" statism is doomed to failure every single time it is imposed!

"Violence and the threat of violence pre-exist states, state-like institutionalizations of order are responses to the permanent possibility of violence inhering in human plurality itself."

Yes, again! So why set up an institution that attracts those who seek to employ that violence without consequences?

"Violence is not created by the state and would obviously persist in a world in which everything "statelike" were smashed."

I never claimed differently. I am simply saying it is foolish to give that violence a veil of ligitimacy. Let people defend themselves (and their neighbors) from those thugs without facing legal barriers that punish the good guys.

"You can declare by fiat that there are no rational conflicts among people, you can declare their are no problems of harm arising from complex modalities of association...

Why do that? Of course there are rational conflicts among people. There doesn't need to be a monopolistic institution to settle those conflicts. And if that institution is one of those concerned with the conflict it is a conflict of interest to allow that institution to adjudicate the dispute.

"...you can declare violence unnecessary by fiat..."

Never said that. Self-defensive violence is often the correct response to being attacked. Violence is neither good nor bad- it depends on whether the violence is initiated or as a response to initiated violence.

"And this is because the world is not like your favorite Ayn Rand novel, and the problems and promises of human plurality and social struggle and stakeholder politics and public goods (sic) are all real whether you understand them or not, whether you ignore them or not, whether you lie about them or not."

Yep. And many of those problems are completely manufactured by the existence of The State, and the best way to deal with this reality is NOT to violate the life, liberty, and property of those around you.

.

Everybody has one

A couple of days ago I was told something to the effect that "Everybody has an opinion- but you don't hafta express it!"

Well, you are right. However, I rarely express my opinions unless I am exposed to other, offensive, opinions first. If I have to listen to everyone around me expressing pro-State/anti-liberty opinions all the time why should I be the one expected to remain silent?

In other words, if you don't want to hear my libertarian opinion, stop being a statist dickweed. That goes for things you take for granted, like "public" schools, "laws", cops, politicians... whatever statist subject you choose to talk about in a less-than honest fashion. If you are going to speak positively about theft, coercion, and violation of rights you should expect me to point out that your opinion is awful when you support (or ignore) evil and give you the ethical alternative.

.