Prohibition still has lessons to teach

Prohibition still has lessons to teach

(My Clovis News Journal column for April 3, 2015)

If government is a good idea — which I doubt — it is being done backward.

Currently, the way it works is a law is passed, then enforced, in an attempt to change people’s behavior. If some behavior weren’t being targeted for change, no one would even dream up a law in the first place.

The only reasonable course, where laws are concerned, is the other way around. People's behavior should determine whether or not a law is enforced, and then once it isn't being enforced, the law should be eliminated.

In fact, this is how alcohol prohibition ended up being scaled back. (I say "scaled back" rather than "repealed", since it is still with us today, as evidenced by "liquor licensing", laws forbidding alcohol sales on Sunday, "dry counties", and various other violations of human rights with regard to alcohol.)

Alcohol prohibition was ignored by enough people that it became unenforceable. Being unenforceable, it stopped being effectively or consistently enforced. Juries stopped convicting people they knew had broken the bad law. Eventually the law changed to reflect this fact. Unfortunately we still suffer the societal damage done by that ill-conceived experiment.

Drug prohibition- for drugs other than alcohol, I mean- may take the same path.

One difference between the alcohol prohibitionists of the 1920s and the drug prohibitionists of today is those who wanted alcohol criminalized understood no such authority was allowed under the Constitution, so they changed the Constitution to make their campaign legal, if not right. Drug prohibitionists never bothered to legalize their stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs. Yes, they chose (and continue to choose) to act in a criminal manner to get what they want. And it has been a disaster to everyone other than those who profit from enforcement, punishment, and other inseparable aspects of black market drug sales.

Abuse of any substance is a bad idea, but no worse than abuse of some imagined authority to control how others live their lives.

If enough good and decent people risk punishment by ignoring a law, any law, that law shouldn't be enforced. Then, always slow to catch up to reality, those who imagine their job is to dream up laws should abolish it. They shouldn't amend it or tweak it to try to make it work better, they should go back and erase the mistake as if it had never happened. All political prisoners held in captivity for breaking the "law" should be immediately released and paid restitution directly from the pockets of those who passed, enforced, and supported the former law.

Or, you can stay on course and be surprised when the results of your stubbornness destroy society.

.

Bullies are everywhere

Are you scared when confronted by a cop or when in front of a judge?

You should be. If you aren't, you don't know the score.

They have no magical powers; they are just bullies imposing their worthless opinions on you with aggression. Those bullies can ruin your life- or even end it- on a whim. If you fight back- as you have every right to do- they will send endless numbers of their cronies after you.

The best bet is to avoid them. But that can cripple your life, too, because those parasites are everywhere.

Be aware, and don't defend them or their "job".

.

Cult of death

It's not someone's "authority" that makes them a danger to my life, liberty, and property. "Authority" is imaginary.

It's their willingness to rob, molest, or kill me, based on their belief in their own "authority", that's the danger to me.

Some will kill in the name of their god, and one of the most dangerous death cults is "authority".

.

I believe...

I believe it is always wrong to initiate force, but if you believe it is necessary, in the heat of the moment, you should just do it and accept the consequences rather than trying to justify it beforehand.

I believe it is wrong to violate private property.

I don't believe you are being good or compassionate when you dream up justifications to violate person or property.

I believe it is right to defend yourself and your property against violators.

I don't believe a job carves out exceptions.

I believe you should honor your agreements unless doing so would violate any of the above.

I believe if the other party breaks their end of the bargain, the deal's off.

What do you believe?

.

Constitution fluffers

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I generally have a lot of patience for those who respect and honor the Constitution and other such things. Probably more than is justified. In part because I kind of feel sorry for them. After all, I was once in their shoes, myself.

You can see the vestiges of that on the pages of KentForLiberty.com (although a lot of that has fallen by the wayside due to updates over the years) and in the oldest posts on this blog.

It took time, thinking, and reading to realize that the Constitution was a horrible mistake if Rightful Liberty were the goal.

It's like saying you want to go to Tahiti, and traveling to Alaska to look for it. Sure, maybe someone lied to you about how to get there. Maybe you misunderstood something. But you aren't getting to your destination by going the wrong direction even if you really mean well.

To me, relying on the Constitution to advance or protect Rightful Liberty is no different from any other magic incantations. If it could work, it would have already worked and would always work. It can't, it didn't, it doesn't, and it won't.

It's a distraction that leads... well, somewhere else. It leads to Big Government and to propping up the belief in "authority". Been there, done that, survived to be better.

.

"Assisted Dying" on Scott Adams' blog

The blog post, found here, presents the views of a person opposed to a "law" "legalizing" physician-assisted suicide.

As always, I am opposed to the very concept of "laws", knowing they are all either unnecessary or harmful. This is another case where not violating the self-ownership of others solves the "problem".

But, as I so often do, I weighed in on the issue. My comment is pasted below (quotes from the post in italics):

Mr. Akins starts out by (and continues throughout) appealing to the "common good", which is a myth; it undermines much of his argument. There are only individuals. What is good for the individual will be the highest good. Those appealing to the "common good" are always using this justification to violate individuals in some way, which wouldn't be good for the "common good", even if such a thing were real.

"What makes you think you have a moral right to medical assistance to kill yourself upon contracting a terminal disease?"
Self ownership. If you own yourself (and if you don't, who does?) then you have the absolute right to end yourself, and to hire someone- voluntarily and without coercion- to assist you if you so choose.

"Why that right in particular and not some other?"
It's not an either/or situation. You have the absolute human right to do anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of anyone else. That includes hiring someone to help you end your life.

"I don’t think that such a legal right should be created."
There are no such things as "legal rights". There are legal privileges- which is really just the privilege to not have someone else's opinions imposed on you- until that "law" is changed. Rights can't be created or eliminated. They can only be respected or violated.

"...it involves a violation of the innate human dignity of the individuals who commit suicide."
In your opinion. So don't participate. Death probably violates "the innate human dignity of the individuals" no matter how it occurs, so this is a nonsense excuse.

"Our culture has been affected by a view that downplays or rejects the dignity of human beings."
Again, your opinion. I believe that saying you can make up a rule that violates self ownership is rejecting the dignity of humans a lot worse than respecting that right- even when it offends you- could ever do.

"We’re either ugly bags of mostly water or we’re human beings with intrinsic dignity."
Yes. And bags of water can be owned by someone else, and the owner can do with those as he sees fit without degrading their dignity (which they don't have). You don't have that right where humans are concerned.

"Just because you are older or in poorer health doesn’t mean that you have any less a right to life."
Of course not. You also have a right to own and to carry weapons. Would you like me to force you to do so against your wishes?

"...and so your life must still be respected."
Yes, and denying a person the freedom and liberty to do with that life as they see fit- as long as they aren't violating anyone else- does not respect their life at all.

"Just as we must respect the dignity that others have, we must respect our own dignity. "
And how did it become your right to tell others how that respect for the self must be put into action?

"A person killing himself is not a desirable outcome."
Again, in your opinion. Getting a terminal disease is also not a desirable outcome- but the universe doesn't seem to care. Probably the person seeking assisted suicide wouldn't have chosen to get the disease and be facing the choice. But it's not your choice to make for him.

"The innate human dignity that we possess demands that we seek another solution, such as treating the cause of the situation."
Why? What if no treatment is possible? Because that's the reality. Are you obligated to seek unicorns just because someone else believes you should?

"Because physician-assisted suicide involves others in suicide—doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc.—it also involves a violation of their dignity."
They always have the right to refuse to participate. Any "law" which says they must help no matter their wishes would be wrong- but I don't think that's what anyone is promoting.

"Just as torturing another person is wrong even if the other person wants to be tortured."
Your opinion. I happen to agree this time, and wouldn't do it, but if it is mutually consensual it's none of your business. Nor mine.

"...legalizing physician-assisted suicide would produce various other problems..."
Why do you assume these would result? You think everyone- or a vast majority- would choose assisted suicide? If so, then your speculations might hold, but as long as there are a lot of people who wouldn't choose it, your objections and fearmongering don't work.

"I’m in favor of getting your grandmother the pain relief she needs in her last month of life."
Why do you assume physical pain is the only thing that could be causing her to want to die? What about being trapped in a body that no longer works, and seeing it shutting down more each and every day- knowing there is only one destination. Knowing she will never again walk through a meadow, or make love, or enjoy her favorite meal. How can your pain drugs deaden this pain without causing a coma? Why is that better than death?

"I could paint the plight of the victims of such laws in similar terms (e.g., 'Why do you favor a policy that would lead heartless doctors and greedy insurance companies to deny my grandmother the pain relief that she desperately needs and instead pressure her to kill herself against her will?')."
You could, but you'd be lying. It's the anti-drug "laws" that most get in the way- doctors are scared of losing their licenses or being arrested for "over-prescribing" pain meds.

" 'once my family wants me dead it is time to go anyway.' This statement is very alarming. The value of the individual is not the subject of a collectivist determination, even of one’s own family."
This wasn't about the family making the determination.

"Today, pain can be eliminated by drugs, for it is possible to place someone in a medically induced coma"
Why is this preferable to death? Because they could wake up? (To agonizing pain.) Just keep them in a coma til they die so they won't wake up in pain? Again, why is this preferable?

"...as the pains associated with age and/or disease occur, we find that we can deal with them better than we thought."
In which case, "we" probably won't be seeking assisted suicide.

"Thus many individuals who could end all pain by a medically induced coma may rationally decide that they would prefer to remain conscious and experience the benefits of consciousness, even if it means living with a certain level of pain."
And these would not be the people seeking assisted suicide.

"I was absolutely determined to make sure that my wife got all the medical care she wanted to have, and I made sure she did."
But what if "all the medical care she wanted to have" included help dying once she knew it was inevitable? Would you have then felt justified in violating her wishes? What's the difference?

"I think virtually everyone would agree that certain, highly destructive weapons simply should not be available for purchase by the general public"
Then those same weapons should certainly not be "owned" by governments, which are always made up of people indoctrinated to believe they are "above" such "silly notions" as "right and wrong". I'd trust my neighbor with a nuke before I'd trust any president or prime minister.

"My point is that physician-assisted suicide is wrong in and of itself..."
Then how about a new field that is not a physician, but instead a "suicide facilitator"? With completely different and more relevant training.

"But there are situations when we are suffering to the point that we might feel imprisoned"
If your body doesn't move and you must have others perform basic bodily functions for you, you don't simply "feel imprisoned", you are imprisoned more effectively than any cage could ever accomplish. Think of the most cruel imprisonment- putting a person in a body-sized iron cage- and you'll approach what some people are going through as they slowly die. Again, this is completely separate from the physical pain- although it could accompany it.

"It is true that some individuals experience pain that can only be satisfactorily treated by inducing unconsciousness..."
Pain is subjective, so your opinions about the pain others experience is irrelevant.

"However, 'if even one person' arguments famously lead to bad policies that do more harm than good."
Which is an excellent refutation of the belief in the legitimacy of "one-size-fits-all laws". Something I find absurd, anyway.

"Suffering does not deprive one of dignity."
Of course it does. I recently had a very painful kidney stone. The pain most assuredly deprived me of any dignity. It's hard to feel any sense of dignity- or to be viewed with dignity- while writhing on the floor. End of life pain (and debility) is sometimes orders of magnitude worse for the sufferer.

"Killing oneself is always a tragedy..."
Yes, but not always the worst tragedy.

.

Drought

I've been thinking a lot about water problems and droughts. And not just as it pertains to California.

In wilderness survival you learn that even in nice conditions, a lack of drinkable water is a serious problem. In that case it is the first thing likely to kill you. In bad conditions it can be even more critical, depending on the circumstances- even though something else might kill you first.

People living in arid regions made a choice that may turn out to be bad. Especially those who kept moving into a dry area after the amount of water available was not enough to support anyone new.

I think that without "government" water projects, the distribution of people and water would be a more reasonable match. It will self-correct even with the artificial "help".

If an area runs out of water, the people and businesses will leave if an affordable and sustainable solution isn't found.

"Government" shouldn't bail out the region (with coercion or stolen property)- and I speak as a person living in such an area.

.

I'd rather be wild

Jungle fowl are in danger from predators and forced to find their own food, Poor things!

So the solution is to selectively breed the wild out of them, turning them into chickens, then cage them in boxes to keep them safely producing eggs and meat.

When the same thing is done to humans it is called "government" and is believed to be "civilized".

How do you like your box?

Jungle fowl hen- in danger from predators

Jungle fowl rooster- worried where his next meal will come from

Safe hens under government protection

.

Government actions not surprising

Government actions not surprising

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 27, 2015)

Are you shocked when the “most transparent administration in history” turns out to be the most blatantly secretive, passing new laws to hide behind while going after whistleblowers with religious zeal?

How about when a president who talks a good freedom game enthusiastically signs the anti-American “Patriot Act?

Does it catch you off-guard when a politician backpedals-- that's another way to say he lied-- on campaign promises?

Are you surprised when the new "law" you supported turns out to have the opposite effect you believed it was going to have?

How do you react when a law you support is turned around and used against you in ways you never expected?

Are you disappointed when politicians are caught being corrupt?

Are you a slow learner, or just in denial?

You shouldn't be surprised, because the system is working the only way it can. It's like being surprised gravity caused the plate you dropped to fall to the ground and shatter. It's how it works-- the only possible way it can work.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that's not the whole story. Power also attracts those who are already corrupt like a cat-hating allergic person attracts shedding cats.

You have allowed a system to be set up, and to continue to exist, which carefully selects for the very worst among us to take the reins and act according to their nature, to the detriment of us all. And then you are surprised by the inevitable.

How do you really expect governing to turn out?

Some people blame Americans for not keeping government under control, saying if only "we" had enforced the Constitution "we" wouldn't be in this mess today. Obviously, many people like to blame the victim; it takes the pressure off themselves, since it is too late to effectively enforce the Constitution now.

The government has now grown too large and too powerful, and there is too much inertia. Most would balk at immediately eliminating the 99% of the federal government which is illegal under the Constitution. (I could be wrong about that percentage- it's probably higher.)

Exactly how you and I, or our great-grandparents, were supposed to work within the system to enforce the Constitution against politicians and judges who care nothing about it, and benefited by ignoring its constraints, is never adequately explained by those who make this claim. They just don't want to admit things are working exactly as they were designed to work. They delude themselves while trying to delude you.

As I listen to people complain, the same thought keeps running through my head: It's government. What else would you expect to happen?

.

Anarchy- almost too mainstream

One sad thing about being an anarchist is that the opportunities to do something really radical and different are so few.

Because, belief in "government" or not, everyone lives their personal lives in a state of anarchy the vast majority of the time. If they didn't, they'd quickly end up dead.

So, people generally don't molest others. They hold the door open for each other. They help out those in need when they can. They try to not crash their car into other cars or pedestrians. They don't rob people. They don't go around trying to force everyone around them to obey their every whim.

In other words, anarchy is so mainstream it's almost boring. The best you can do is point this out to statists and watch them sputter and fume, try to deny it, or claim "that's not anarchy!"

I guess the only really radical thing left to anarchists is to not make exceptions for those who act like jerks as a part of their "job".

.

Renovations complete at KentForLiberty.com

 For the past several days I have been re-writing all the pages at KentForLiberty.com. I was a bigger task that I expected, and I am glad it is done.

A lot of the pages were badly outdated. My views have changed. I used to be much more a "constitutionalist" than I am now- although that was years ago. I have come closer to the roots of many things, rather than worrying with the leaves and branches so much. It was time to reflect that growth. (One page that I don't edit is "My Views", since that is an archive. Well, I don't edit anything but the introduction to the page, anyway.)

As always, I found and corrected more typos and misspellings.

I also decided to mirror KentForLiberty in pages on this blog. You can find these new pages under the blog header. I did that for a couple of reasons: I wanted a backup, just in case something happened to the website- such as me not continuing to pay for it, or it getting shut down for some other reason. I also have had technical glitches, while I was in the midst of editing, which have erased pages before. I wanted a faster way of fixing that problem.

I also thought it would be good to have it all in one place, here, so that if anyone is looking around, it would be easy to find.

It was a lot of work- I hope you like the results.

.

Belief in "government" makes you weak

Belief in "government" is a crutch for some people. Leaning on it atrophies their muscles and is a self-destructive cycle of decay.

They have gotten dependent on leaning on it and now believe that they can't stand on their own two feet. But they can- if they'll just try. It might be difficult at first, and they may falter and stumble, but the alternative is a steady decline.

When a problem crops up, the first reaction of many seems to be to reach out to "government" for assistance.

Do you really wish to sell yourself and your family into slavery that cheaply? Do you want to sell your future and the future of your children? You are worth more than that.

Don't let the belief in "government" blind you to your own abilities and your real value.

You are not crippled; the State-worshipers are.

You can stand on your own if only you will drop the crutch that belief in "government" has hypnotized you into believing you need.

Drop it and stand on your own feet. Then take a step forward, away from the negative goons of the State. While you are at it, tell those goons to take a hike.

.

Reluctant bleg

Other than a recent request for some money for something my daughter wanted (which was met- thank you!), I haven't annoyed my readers with a request for money in a while. I have been managing okay.

Well, now things have changed a little and I have to ask.

A while back- in January, actually- I helped someone else out financially. At the time it wasn't going to be a problem. It still wouldn't be, except ... now I need the money I used to help them out and they aren't yet in a position to pay me back. (And if they never can, I'll not make an issue of it.)

The crisis is due to the other person in the household not getting paid for a week of vacation time from last month. Not yet. The money is supposedly still coming through the bureaucratic pipeline at their job, but I'm having my doubts. It won't get here in time to prevent some bad problems, either way. And I don't have enough to meet the shortfall.

If you are a subscriber, please don't respond with a donation- you already do enough. If you don't want to help, or if you can't help, then please don't. If you don't think I provide any value in return for the money, then obviously I am not asking you to donate. I only want voluntary trades of value for value.

If you can, and want to, the "donate" button is over there to the right.

.

Ejikashun iz M-por-tint

Government school is the worst thing to ever happen to education.

It cheapened it, and not in a good way.

It also made it feel like punishment to the inmates referred to as "students". It encourages a lot of them to stay as far as possible away from anything which could be considered educational. And, not just during their "school years", but throughout life. That is tragic! It's why v*ting and "government" is still as popular as it is among those unable to truly think.

It teaches "authority" instead of independence. It dumbs down rather than lifts up.

It teaches kids it's OK to steal as long as you use what you stole for something "important"- and some kids get the message loud and clear.

And, rather than educating, it indoctrinates.

Nothing could be worse as far as education goes. In fact, doing nothing would be an improvement.

.

Stupid questions

Yes, they do exist:

"Without astrology how can we know what will happen today?" 

"Without government how will we be safe from dangers?"

The two questions, and the sentiments they echo, are equally stupid. Both are based on superstition.

.

It's NOT "OK" to support cops

A while back, in a Facebook thread, a cop supporter (I'll refrain from using the more descriptive term) said she had discovered, due to that thread, that people have differences of opinions about cops, and that's OK.

But not all opinions are equally valid.

Supporting cops (or being a cop), and saying that's a valid choice, is identical to saying that rape is a perfectly valid way to have sex, and supporting rapists is just peachy.

No, it isn't.

Aggression is the disqualifying feature of both acts.

.

Facebook experiments

Recently, I have been using Facebook to test out ideas and sound bites. I mean, more so than in the past.

Some of those (like today's earlier blog post) end up being blogged here. Others don't.

If you'd like to get in on the fun, feel free to "friend" me- or "follow" me, if the available spots in my friend list get taken up before you get there.

I find it very educational to discover what gets the townfolk riled.

.

"Trigger warning"?

If you require "trigger warnings"- about ANYTHING- you have failed as a human.

Sorry if you believe that statement should have come with a "trigger warning". Wait... no, I'm not.

I'm not saying that bad things haven't happened to you in the past. I'm not saying that being reminded of those bad things won't hurt.

What I am saying is that no one is obligated to tip-toe around your delicate feelings and censor themselves to keep you from getting upset. Doing so doesn't help you; it shelters you and allows you to remain broken- and to only get worse over time.

Anyone posting a trigger warning for your "benefit" is slapping you in the face and saying you can't handle being a human. It's an insult to you.

You should be grateful that people treat you as a fully-functional human rather than as a delicate cracked egg shell.

.

Being prepared is common sense

Being prepared is common sense

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 20, 2015)

The water shut off in Portales last week should have awakened a few people. From previous experience, I doubt it did.

For years I have advocated preparing for possible problems. No, I'm not a "doomsday prepper" waiting for a magnetic pole shift, the collapse of civilization, or a solar flare burning out the power grid. And I don't believe in zombies. I simply believe in staying ready for anything which could disrupt normal 21st Century life- things like having the water shut off.

No one should have been scrambling to find water; everyone should have already stocked at least a few days' supply of water around the house or business. This is a dry region, after all. Yet, how many have done so? How many realized their mistake and moved to correct it after this water crisis?

Having the water shut off city-wide for a day or so is nothing compared to many things which could happen.

Being prepared isn't paranoia- it's common sense. Our grandparents knew it. Any preparation is better than none.

Yet suggestions to be prepared are usually countered with excuses and denial.

"I don't need to stock up on anything- I can just walk to the store."
"I live in a good neighborhood."
"I can't afford to buy anything extra to put aside."
"That will never happen here- not to me."

Even after unexpected problems crop up, the response is "I survived okay."

Yes, this time. What if it had been worse, had lasted longer, or had been more widespread? What about next time?

Survival isn't the only consideration. Comfort is another.

It doesn't take "the end of the world as we know it" to make "preps" handy. Many times I have drawn upon my preparations to make minor inconveniences less difficult. In fact, I've had fun during minor emergencies while other people ran around in a confused panic. I am usually the person my friends come to when they find themselves caught unprepared for any small difficulty- and I normally have something which can help. But I can't help everyone other than by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives.

You can't count on others- those who saw the wisdom in making preparations- coming to your aid. They have to look out for themselves and their family first. It's not selfishness; it is responsibility. You and your family are your responsibility. Don't shirk. Look at the problems most likely to happen where you live, and find out what you would need most if they do occur. Think of simple, general things you might do. Stop looking for excuses and just start small today.

.

"Compromising Good with Evil"- and failing, utterly

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I would still rather be right- be accepting of reality- than be comfortable. I'd rather be right than be libertarian.

If reality doesn't support liberty, then I want to be aware of it and accept it and figure out what the reality is.

I don't want cognitive dissonance or compartmentalization to get in the way. Fantasies about how things are might be comforting to some people, but I don't want to coddle those fantasies.

But, the deeper I dig, the less sense statism makes to me. The more "arguments" I hear in support of "governments", "laws", "States", and initiating force and theft, the more insane they sound. The inconsistencies are simply too glaring to ignore.

But, trying to explore the possibilities to discover reality is why I read things like this: Compromising Good with Evil

Right off the bat he gets something completely wrong, which throws off the entire rest of his screed- he says libertarians think that "There simply can be no middle ground between the two fundamental philosophical opposites of freedom and slavery. Either we are a free society or a slave society, but we can't be both."

While that is a true statement, he goes on to say "This all libertarians agree upon, or they're not libertarians." So, this is the defining principle of libertarianism?

Ummm... wrong. Libertarians know that initiating force and violating private property are wrong. That's what makes them libertarians. The other things logically stem from that, but are not the foundation.

And, he goes downhill from there, just like every single criticism of Abolitionism/voluntaryism/anarchism/libertarianism I have ever encountered does- simply because they utterly fail to understand what they are trying to debunk. They argue from ignorance.

His entire article is based upon an appeal to authority- in this case, Aristotle and his "Golden Mean". The "Golden Mean" works for some things, like Goldilocks' "Not too cold or too hot- but just right". It doesn't work at all where Liberty is concerned. That's because Liberty is self-limiting. Your Liberty can't violate anyone else, or it ceases to be Liberty. And "government" always violates Liberty.

He claims, using the idea of the "Golden Mean", that good and evil are not opposites along a single axis, but good is in the middle, with evil at either extreme. With regards to Liberty, "too much" is anarchy, and too little is tyranny. As if anarchy is a bad thing. His superstitious belief in "limited government" is, of course, his "Golden Mean" of juicy goodness. He is wrong. Probably because he doesn't understand what evil is.

Evil is doing intentional harm to those who don't deserve to be harmed right now. Harm isn't on either side of good- it is the opposite of good no matter what justification you use. And, if it doesn't harm people, it isn't evil even if you think it wouldn't be the best path. Statism- the belief that governing people is a legitimate human endeavor- is evil because of the harm it inevitably causes to individual life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. You can't violate people "for their own good" no matter how passionately you make that silly claim.

Originally I intended to show how and why the author was wrong, bit by bit. Piece by piece. Paragraph by paragraph. Because he is wrong. In fact, either he is intentionally lying, or he's an idiot.

But the article is so incredibly long and full of fail that I realized quickly that to dissect it would require one of those multi-part blogs addressing slavery-apologists (statists) I have done in the past. I just don't feel like it. Besides, cutting through the BS of his "Golden Mean" idea of good and evil is probably all that is necessary to bring down his whole house of marked cards.

Feel free to read that article for yourself, and notice all the mistakes he makes- even if you don't get far into it, I'm confident you'll see more wrongness than you can keep up with. His flawed assumptions; his mischaracterizations; his non-sequiturs. The list is almost endless. Statism is a fail. From beginning to end. It is based on a superstition.

.