Anti-gun bigots strike again

Someone I have met was just kidnapped and released (it was called an "arrest") because well over a month ago, a cowardly, sniveling off-duty cop saw him wearing a gun on his hip, openly and peaceably, in a convenience store. This disgusting cop had issues with this behavior from a mere mundane because he believes "the law" prohibits guns in places that sell alcohol. By my acquaintance's understanding, this "law" only applies where alcohol is consumed on premises. Whatever.

Of course, you and I know such a "law" is always counterfeit, and enforcing it is only carried out by evil induhviduals. Like the bully cop.

At the time of the non-incident, the bully allowed my acquaintance to leave, but apparently tattled to those holding his leash as soon as he could.

So the prosecutor- another sniveling anti-liberty bigot- decided to issue a demand for his kidnapping. Of course, being a statist with delusions of "authority" he called it a warrant for his arrest. Same thing.

Now, you know that a badge doesn't make wrong right, nor does it make right wrong.

If an act is wrong for you or me, it is wrong for a cop. And if an act is OK when done by a cop, it is OK for you or me to do the same. That's the only way it can be, because cops are not superior, with additional rights or privileges.

They are nothing more than lowly hired hands who are subservient to us, and have no rights we don't already possess- because no one can authorize anyone to do things he doesn't have the right to do. If I don't have the right to carry a gun into a convenience store- or into a bar, courthouse, or anywhere else- then neither can a cop; hired on my behalf. That's just reality.

History shows cops will murder you- with the full support of their followers- for acting on this reality, but that just proves how disgustingly evil they are.

There is no victim and there is no crime. My acquaintance did nothing wrong- all the guilt lies with those who dreamed up, wrote, passed, and enforce this counterfeit "law".

I hope my acquaintance insists on a jury trial, and I hope that at least one member of his jury knows he has a duty to nullify this counterfeit "law" by saying "not guilty" and refusing to even consider "lesser" charges or any penalties whatsoever.

That's the right thing to do.

.

"Trade deficits"

Once again I saw someone whining about "trade deficits". This, again? People still believe in that sort of thing? Well, yes, people who believe in The State still believe in other meaningless things, too.

There can be no such thing as a "trade deficit". There can be trade, or there can be theft. The component that makes the difference, by its presence or absence, is coercion. When you trade, there is no deficit; no imbalance. Not ever.

One example that is much overused in regard to "trade deficits" is China. Chinese manufacturers make cheap stuff and sell it to customers in America. And we customers pay them for it. No one forces us to buy any one thing in particular. Even government has so far failed in this area (except in the "market" of "services" like insurance).

When we give a Chinese manufacturer dollars (in the roundabout way this sort of thing occurs), we have made an even trade. Dollars for products. There is no deficit. If you are losing something in a trade, don't trade. Unless a government or mugger gets involved and takes your property (products or dollars) and gives nothing (or too little) in return, the trade is always an even one.

But this brings up a philosophical question. Which is more valuable: printed paper with dollar signs or real goods that can be used to make a better life for the people who possess them? Apparently, under current circumstances, to most people, they are of equal (but fluid) value. When the dollar eventually collapses (as all fiat money does) would you rather have a big bank account or a house full of useful items that you purchased indirectly from sellers in other countries (who now have your worthless paper)?

If you claim the money traded for the products is worth more than the product you got in return, you are an idiot to agree to the trade. Personally, as an individual. If you wish to claim that US dollars are worthless (or worth less), you are saying the Chinese company got ripped off, not you. You have no "authority", nor enough wisdom, to judge another person's trade. What makes sense to them may seem one-sided to you. That is not for you to judge.

If you are mad that "PlastiCrap World" sells cheap Chinese products, don't buy them. Pay more and get a better item instead, either from the same store or from a competitor. Or get what you want from a yard sale or flea market. Or design and build your own. I do all the above, and so can you. Plus, sometimes I buy the "cheap junk" because it suits my needs at the the time, at the price I am willing to pay. Once again: voluntary trade = no deficit.

The whole myth of "trade deficits" is just an excuse to tell you who you can trade with, and under what conditions. It also always funnels some money into thieving governmental hands. This myth is an authoritarian power-grab and is bad for liberty and good for coercive government.

But what about "American jobs" going overseas? Outsourcing is a form of "division of labor". If you are good at doing something, people will seek you out to purchase that product or service. As long as you charge a price people are willing to pay, that is. Minimum wage laws mess with that formula. They skew the market and make it harder to do business affordably and competitively where they exist- but that's another issue for another day.

Also, when governments subsidize a company so it can sell cheaper to another country, that skews the market, but also is a net drain on the people of the country doing it ("taxes", etc.) so they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. And, again, you can choose to refuse to trade with companies you believe take advantage of government handouts, wherever in the world they may be based. Governments screw up everything they touch- that's a reality you need to deal with.

Now, I am not sure what companies are thinking when they set up their customer service phone centers in places where the employees have such a strong accent that they can not be understood by the average person. Unless they really have no interest in "serving the customers", which seems likely in many cases.

.
Adapted from two old posts of mine, here, and here









.

Borrowing trouble from schools

Getting worked up over stupid things done by "public" schools seems pointless to me. Yet people do seem to "enjoy" it as a hobby.

The solution isn't to go tell the principal your grievances, or to yell at the stupid teacher, or even to get angry over arbitrary and harmful rules.

The solution is to divorce your life from those awful kinderprisons. Why put up with them? Education is too important to waste time on school.

Yes, I realize you will continue to be robbed to fund them- or die for daring to keep your property intact.

.

You’re libertarian or you’re not

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 5, 2016)

Libertarianism is filled with wolves in sheep's clothing. People with anti-liberty ideals, when they share some pro-liberty ideals with libertarians, believe we share all their ideals. We don't. In fact, their anti-liberty "values" are disgusting.

I know there are also those who claim to be "conservative" or "liberal" who can't meet the minimum measure to fit the bill. Regardless of where you stand, I'm sure you can relate to the problem of wolves in sheep's clothing among any group.

Someone can be "libertarian leaning" while still not being libertarian. They are not the ones to learn from if you truly want to understand liberty.

Over the years I have seen people claim anyone who points out one of these frauds is falling into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. If you aren't familiar with this fallacy, it's like claiming "No libertarian would do that!" If shown someone who claims to be a libertarian doing exactly that, they cry "No TRUE libertarian would."

However, the fallacy doesn't apply where there is a clear definition of what membership in a group entails, and it is being violated. For example: "no honest man would lie" isn't a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, because liars are not honest.

Sometimes he really isn't a Scotsman.

A libertarian is one who advocates maximum liberty and minimum government. My observation is that "minimum" anything is zero; you may believe in some other minimum.

"Maximum liberty and minimum government" is reached by rejecting aggression. Libertarians accept the fact that no one has a right to use force against those who are not being violent nor violating private property, and no one has a right to violate the property of others. A job can't grant you a pass, either.

Anyone who follows this is a libertarian whether he knows it or not, and those who don't accept it aren't libertarian no matter what they may say. By definition. A horse is a horse, and nothing else is.

The worst anti-libertarian impostors are always politicians. Ofttimes they don't claim to be libertarian, but are mislabeled as such by the media which doesn't understand the politician nor libertarianism. This gets old.

It is also divisive. Libertarians who believe in trying to vote their way to more liberty are constantly fooled into supporting politicians who don't reject aggression and theft, just because they believe another politician would be worse.

If you vote and value liberty, look at what the candidate does, not what he is called.

.

Hopeful delusions

Confession: I am horrible at romantic relationships. Every single one I have ever been in has ended in heartache for me (and quite probably for her, as well). Yet, I never seem to learn. I always believe that maybe next time will be better.

Sounds like every v*ter's experience, doesn't it.

They keep getting betrayed, having their hopes and dreams crushed by the system and the politicians they believed in... and they keep believing that "next time" will be different; perhaps it will change everything.

Which of us is more delusional?

.

One middleman who should always be cut out

If I buy corn from a farmer, rather than from a grocery store, I might save money. I might get fresher corn. I might even enjoy the experience a little more. What it doesn't mean when I choose to cut out the middleman-- the grocery store-- is that I "hate food".

Yet, this is what statists claim if I prefer alternatives to government monopoly "services".

Of course, most of what government does should not be done at all, but with those few things it does that should be done, government acts as a middleman. It connects providers with those wanting what they provide-- those who build roads with those who want a road built, for example.

The problem is that government then takes a huge cut of the money to pay for its inefficient and harmful bureaucracy- and probably even uses that cut to fund the things it shouldn't be doing which shouldn't be done at all.

Sometimes government has invented new ways of being a middleman by inserting itself into transactions as nothing more than a parasite- adding nothing of value to the trade while adding cost, inefficiency, and red tape- such as by insisting on being involved in gun purchases so it can approve or deny the sale, and take notes of all involved. Truly the idea of sick and perverted minds.

When you cut out the middleman grocer, you might feel a little bad. When you cut out the middleman government employee, you are enhancing your liberty. You are doing a service to yourself and others if you can starve that particular middleman by preventing him from being involved and skimming money from the economy.

Or, as one of my friends recently put it: "if we as individuals try always to 'cut out the middleman' that is government, we will be freer." I couldn't agree more!

.

The worthless, lazy uncle- Uncle Sam

How do you like supporting that worthless, lazy uncle- Uncle Sam?

He sits on your couch in his underwear and wife-beater shirt, eating your food and telling you what to buy.

He's a pervert and a snoop. His laptop is always on- he's busy hacking into everyone's personal stuff and salivating at their private pictures and videos. He watches you. He also has his own cameras set up in the neighbors' houses- in their bedrooms and bathrooms, even.

He is a child molester- but says it's OK when he does it because he does it for their own good.

He has never had a job, but has always lived by stealing. He says that's OK because he buys you gifts with your money.

He also runs a protection racket. He claims he keeps you safe from neighborhood bullies, but the main reason those bullies are a threat is because he goes around picking fights and trespassing. He's a bigger bully than anyone he claims to protect you from. In fact, he's the only real threat to your life, liberty, and happiness, no matter what he says.

Most of your other relatives say you should be grateful to have him around, because you couldn't survive without him.

The truth is the exact opposite. You would be fine without him, but he'd wither and die without you. And you'd be better off than you've ever been before. At the very least you should kick him out of your house and make him find someone else to sponge off of and push around for a while.

.

A "genuinely nice" cop

Copsuckers sure do have a wacky definition of "nice".

"Genuinely nice guy," he said. "You didn't have to ask him for anything, because he was already giving it to you...Justice should be swift, because from what I can see, there's no reason that this should have happened."

This brilliance was uttered by the cousin of the off-duty NYPD cop (FYI: cops don't ever consider themselves "off-duty" if it means acting civilized) who rear-ended another driver, then jumped out of his car, pointed a gun at her, and repeatedly yelled "You don't know who I am...I can kill you right now".

Before he could carry out his credible threat he was struck and killed by another driver- an accidental savior.

So, yes, Justice should be swift, and in this case it really was.

Unfortunately the guy chosen by Justice as its delivery driver is being charged with a "crime".

The State hates Justice and does everything it can to prevent it from happening. When it happens anyway, the bullies look for someone to punish.

OK, OK... so that may not have been justice. Not exactly. The cop's victim wasn't returned to her pre-violation condition, but her life very well may have been saved from his aggression and credible threat to murder her.

Maybe it was what they call "Karma".

Good riddance to bad trash- again. If only it could happen this way every time a cop tries to commit enforcement or initiate force in some other way.

.

Change is scary

"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." ~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 6, 1513- Yes, I am still reading this and still finding truths.)

Sometimes the "new order" isn't all that new, it is just unfamiliar.

Obviously the State's parasites don't want to lose their position.

Cops would lose "authority" and would no longer be able to aggress without much risk of consequences. They don't want to be demoted to mere "mundane". It would destroy their self-image.

Puppeticians would have to produce something of value or starve. No more living on "taxation" and having their worthless opinions imposed on people at the barrel of the cops' guns.

Even the millions of people doing work of variable worth for The State would have something change for them. They might even do the same job, but for voluntary customers who can choose to go elsewhere instead of a captive pool of slaves. That change is scary. But, there is the reality that much of what is done for "government" shouldn't be done at all. These people would have to find new purpose and work.

And, of course, Liberty is largely illegal today. Some people are bothered by the thought of breaking "laws", no matter how evil, worthless, or absurd those "laws" may be.

Psychology also indicates it is harder to lose something than to pass up a reward. People already have "government" and all that comes with it. Statism gives familiarity and predictability to those who drag their feet when presented with the opportunity for liberty. It doesn't matter that it isn't very good- they can imagine worse more easily than they can imagine better. So I try to show them better.

.

Collectivist delusions

(Previously posted to Patreon)

I was having an online discussion with someone who was defending collectivism and objected to those making it out to be a bad thing.

Just to be clear, I think there's a huge difference between cooperation and collectivism.

The difference is consent. The same difference that differentiates between "making love" and rape. You can join together with whoever willingly joins with you, but the moment you leave out consent you become a collectivist- an aggressor- rather than a cooperator; subject to self-defensive violence. It isn't the joining with others that makes a collectivist, it is the coercion they add.

He kept talking about "Big Things" he thought people needed to join together to create, and kept getting upset that others didn't want to be forced to do things he thought were important.

Then he made the statist's fundamental mistake and exposed why he isn't thinking clearly. He characterized individualists as "the group of people who don't consent to being a part of society...".

It's such a common mistake. Collectivism (particularly "government"- The State) is the opposite of society. It is the collectivists who refuse to be a part of society- refuse to be civilized. Instead they use aggressive force to short circuit society and have their way with others. That is barbarism- although it has been dressed up in fancy suits and given offices and convinced people it isn't what it is.

It doesn't matter to me if you establish your very own little communist enclave. Have at it. What does matter to me is whether you force others to participate. If you rob ("tax") me to support your project, you have crossed the line into collectivism. If you don't let people opt out or leave your group, you are violating them.

If you force them to leave "communal property" behind when they leave the commune, and they had already agreed to that condition from the beginning, too bad for them. However, if you come to me and claim that because I live in the area where you established your enclave- even though I never agreed to abide by your rules- I must either join or leave my property behind, we will have a problem.

If all my neighbors are communists/socialists/DemoCRAPublicans, but will coexist with me, I am fine with that. If they claim "authority" over me, and seek to violate my life, liberty, and property, I will resist their violations.

Rejecting collectivism isn't anti-social or isolationist. But even if an individual is anti-social or isolationist, it's not your concern. And it isn't suicidal. He tried to compare individualism to a liver or brain being separated from the human body. It's not the same. I can live without other humans- people have done so for years. It's not optimal. But a liver can't live without the rest of the body or an artificial substitute. Neither can a brain.

He also tried (confusingly, I believe) to tie one position or the other to "free will", and went on a tangent about whether it exists or not. Not that I see any way that has any bearing on the matter.

If free will exists, you have no right to violate it in a person who isn't violating others.
If free will doesn't exist, I have no choice but to be an individualist and trying to force me into a coercive collective won't end well.

Collectivistic statists are an interesting breed. Simplistic in their beliefs. Stubborn in refusing to see reality. But educational to occasionally talk to. Their sky really is a different color.

.

No One great choice for president

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 29, 2016)

Donald Trump: Making elections funny again.

I'm not usually interested in watching elections or the hysterics leading up to them. I see sincere but silly people trying to convince me that the bowl of sewage they dipped from the cesspool is more delicious, or at least less toxic, than the bowl of sewage some other people dipped from the same cesspool. I'm not interested in sampling either bowl.

I have never needed a president. I can't point to a single instance where a president improved my life in any way. The same goes for any political office.

I am told I need to help choose the person to fill these offices, since someone will be elected whether or not I participate. Sorry, but I'd rather keep my hands clean.

So, no, I don't want Trump to be president any more than I want any of the other covetous control freaks to be president.

I am, however, enjoying watching his campaign out of the corner of my eye.

It started back in the middle of August when Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams predicted Trump would win the election. My interest grew in October when Adams predicted a Trump landslide.

He bases this on Trump's skill at persuasion- what you could think of as hypnosis without the trance and clucking. Adams is also trained in hypnosis and says he has never seen anyone use persuasion as skillfully as Trump. The simplistic language; the appeal to identity; the rejection of reason; the way he offers a blank canvas with his words and lets the listener paint the picture he wants to see, believing this is what Trump said.

Several times Adams has predicted how Trump could neuter a particular opponent-- using what he refers to as "linguistic kill shots"-- only to have his prediction come to pass within a week or so. It is fascinating.

So, even though I have no need for a president and pity those who believe they do, I hope Trump wins if somebody has to, simply because I'd like to believe it possible for someone to look beneath the surface and see how voters are tricked into voting for someone.

Of course, my only choice for president is No One. No One would be a great president. No One is honest enough to trust with that power. No One can run your life better than you. No One deserves your vote. Vote for No One.

.

A 600 Year-old truth

"... for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse."~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 3, 1513)

And so it still is, with every election and revolution.

Vote for this parasite, because he's better than that bully and you'll be more free if he wins.

Yeah, right.

Every president is worse than the ones before- each builds upon the abuses and violations of their predecessors and make up their own. If they claim to be reducing government, you can bet they are lying and building bigger government behind you back while you are distracted. When any president leaves office your liberty will be damaged a bit more than it was when he took office.

Because liberty NEVER comes from politics. You have to make it yourself. And TAKE it yourself. You can't exercise your liberty while obeying "laws"- liberty is the province of the outlaw.

Don't initiate force. Don't violate private property. Defend yourself and your property from those who violate you. Realize that defending yourself from violators will have consequences- and the consequences for defending yourself from certain serial violators will be steeper than for defending yourself from others- so be smart and choose your battles. Liberty-lovers have enough martyrs already.

Stop worrying about trading one bully for another, unless you know for certain you can trade for a weak, frightened bully you can easily get rid of without replacing him or her with anything.

And go out and live.

.

My non-blog

This time, no transcript. Just me yapping in the wind (recorded Sunday 2-28-2016. Sorry about the wind noise. I can't control the weather, and wouldn't usually want to even if I could.).

In the video I touched on this idea- here, I'll say just a little more about it.

"Build a wall!"
"Free stuff!"
The covey-call of statists; of socialists, really.

They may want to steal your property for different projects, and may want to deny your self-determination in different ways, but they are birds of a feather.

They are all anti-liberty bigots, and they disgust me.

.

Social media

There are a lot of people who hate social media. I empathize with some of their reasons, even as I (believe I) look beyond them.

Social media is a tool, just like a gun. You wouldn't stare down the barrel of a loaded gun with your finger on the trigger, and there are things you should never do on social media.

When Cheyenne died, social media (in particular Facebook) saved my sanity. It would be dishonest of me to deny that. And this blog- also social media- helps me in multiple ways almost every day.

But there are dangers. Particularly to privacy. Some you can lessen, some you can't. When I started out on social media, I used a sort of alias. Some places, I still do (it won't do any good to ask what the alias is). Sometimes I wish I had never exposed my identity. Other times it really doesn't matter to me- I spent most of my earlier life being a private hermit, and I understand the drawbacks of that life, too.

I also notice that the people who get the most stirred up over the "drama" they suffer because of social media, cause almost all of that drama themselves.

Ultimately there are benefits and pitfalls. To everything. It is up to you to decide what is worth it and what isn't.

And, whatever your views on it, I appreciate your choice to interact with me through this tool.

.

Corporations: just another branch of The State

"They are a private company..."

This is supposed to excuse any corporation's rights violation... but does it? Really?

A private company is one owned by individuals who are accountable and who will face serious consequences if they screw up and hurt somebody. They can make up any rules they want, and if part of the cost of doing business with them is that you are agreeing to submit to being sprayed with nitric acid randomly while in the store, you are free to refuse to do business with them. If you don't do business with them, they won't be getting any of your money. If they go out of business due to being stupid or evil, no stolen money will be going to bail them out. They live or die based on how they treat customers.

A corporation is, in many cases, a different critter.

A corporation has joined with The State to get some privileges and perks. The "corporation" may face consequences for screwing up and hurting someone, but the individual who made the decision probably won't. If they get big enough to feel comfortable abusing customers, you can bet they are probably "too big to fail", and in the event of massive evil and/or stupidity, they will be bailed out by their partners in The State. You can refuse to do business with them, but they will be getting some of your money no matter what.

And, to my thinking anyway, this makes it no longer a "private company", but a willing and eager partner of The State- with all its evils. And the illegitimacy that goes along with that. As such, I think of it, not as a "private company", but as a part of the State and subject to the same limits on behavior I hold the State to. (Yes, YOU and I outrank The State and are totally within our rights to hold it to certain behavior, not the backwards way statists wish the arrangement to be.)

I know lots and lots (and lots) of people disagree with me on this point.

They ask "what is the company supposed to do, stay unincorporated and miss out on the perks and privileges? Wouldn't anyone take such a thing when offered?" Maybe. I can see being robbed ("taxed") less, by "incorporating" when possible. But it doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility, no matter how The State sees it.

You have no obligation to obey rules the State makes up if they go against Rightful Liberty. And I still believe the same goes for "corporations" that willingly get in bed with the State. Sure, they get some perks, but those perks come at a price. One of those prices is that I no longer feel obligated to submit to their State-like counterfeit rules.

.

Scumbag Texas

A couple of years ago, the bullies who call themselves "The State of Texas" decided to make up a new evil rule: they decided to forbid driving in the left lane of divided highways, except for passing. They have erected new signage, paid for with stolen money: "Left lane for passing only".

It may have something to do with keeping that lane open for their hired goons to travel faster. Or to keep it open so you can move over when one of the delicate little cowards is engaged in robbing a traveler on the right shoulder and doesn't want to become roadkill in the process. (Poor little parasites!)

Well, so then what did these government idiots do? They tore up the right lane's surface so badly you can't drive any distance on it without fighting to stay in control while risking a blowout. Only the right lane, of course. For miles.

The trap is set

I took a couple of little trips recently- of only about 40 miles round trip- but almost the entire trip was on this destroyed surface. I noticed that just about everyone on the road ignored the dumb rule- which is heartening. The entire line of traffic was ALL in the left lane for almost the entire stretch.

I'm sure if one of the armed bullies had seen us, he would have stopped, robbed, and molested someone, but he couldn't have gotten us all.

I have wondered if this is just a money-making scheme. The highway has been torn up like this for months- in preparation for "resurfacing", I'm sure. But there are no signs saying anything, and no equipment at the ready. How much money are they stealing above and beyond their normal take due to the condition of the road? Is this why they are in no hurry, and haven't suspended the dumb rule for the duration?

.

Panic the herd

"This is the most crucial election in our lifetime". LOL.

Every single time.

Does anyone still buy that from the v*te pushers?

.

‘I don’t know’ makes flimsy cover

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 22, 2016)

“I don’t know” can be one of the smartest things you ever say. At least, when you honestly don’t know.

Whenever possible, it should be followed up with finding out what it was you didn’t know. Once you discover a gap in your knowledge, how can you be content to leave it unfilled?

"I don't know" can also be one of the dumbest things you say when you say it because you don't want to know, or don't want to speak the truth.

You can claim you don't know who would be the best president, what government should do, or which laws should be enacted, but you could know. Easily. You don't even need to find out anything new. The answers are inside you. You've known since you were five years old, or younger, that it's not OK to start a fight or take what doesn't belong to you. It takes years of schooling to trick people into believing exceptions exist.

Once you remember what you've known you can see no one is suited to preside over any other person who didn't specifically sign an agreement to be represented by that person. Voting for them isn't enough. Even in the event of a landslide only a small minority of the population voted for the declared winner.

The question of what government should do about anything must be answered with "Nothing. Get out of the way. Stop." Unless everyone lies to children about starting fights and stealing being wrong.

In the same way, if a law violates anyone's liberty it shouldn't be passed or enforced. Not ever.

"I don't know" only works in these instances until you think. You just lost your excuse.

Maybe you wish to avoid the truth by saying you don't know when actually you'd simply rather not face what it is you are supporting.

People seem to believe they look enlightened by not condemning acts which violate person or property, and those who habitually commit those acts. They pretend they are keeping an open mind. They are mistaken.

You don't need to be a victim of murder to come out against murder. Not only murder- the ultimate violation of person- but lesser violations as well. Those who insist you can't understand the complexities involved until you have been on both sides are lying.

So admit you don't know when you honestly don't know. But don't hide behind "I don't know" when facing the truth would make you uncomfortable.

.

Justifying The State

If you justify the existence of "government"- The State- by saying because of a lack of godliness, "men are not to be trusted", you might have a thinking problem.

Just exactly who do you believe makes up these governments you feel “we need”, if not those men you say are “not to be trusted”?

 If god can somehow make men good enough to govern others, why do you doubt his ability to make men good enough to govern themselves? Seems contradictory to me.

.

Communication isn't as easy as it looks

Communication doesn't seem like it should be so difficult. And, often people seem to believe they are communicating when they aren't.

Often it's because one particular word is being used to mean different (or even opposite) things by each person. Or sometimes the trouble lies elsewhere.

Sometimes there isn't a precise word to convey the meaning I need. In the past I have invented a few of my own words, but generally I use words already out there.

Then, to try to avoid confusion, I define the words as I use them.

Sometimes people disagree with the particular words I use. And sometimes, they might be right, according to the dictionary definitions. Sometimes I disagree with the dictionary definitions, too.

A few words I have experienced this with are "moral", "anarchy", "freedom", "liberty", and "government".

The dictionary definitions as they stand simply won't work- they are too fuzzy or include opposing concepts under the same word. But, I still need to get my meaning across, and the best way I can see doing that is to define what I mean when I use a certain word. If you have a better idea, let me know.

.