That’s also what they owe us.
Without some other mutually consensual agreement, it’s all they owe us.
It's easy to pay, so you never have to go into debt.
To violate the rights of others is the only reasonable definition of actual crime. Some would call it "krime" or "archation".
You can't delegate to others a right that you don't have; which you don't have because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because it can't be created.
Every human being has the right (and the obligation) to govern himself. No one has the right, or the imaginary "authority", to govern another. This "right" can't be delegated to someone by a majority, because none of the individuals involved have this "right" to delegate. No majority, or document, or superstition can create such a right.
To try to govern someone else anyway is to violate the life, liberty, and/or property of those you're trying to govern. You may do it with taxation, prohibitions, mandates, or by violating the right of association and forcing your agents upon people who would prefer to be left alone by them.
In other words, to try to govern others, whether by a dictator or a democracy, is to commit a crime against all those you intend to govern. Government is criminal in design and execution, and can be nothing else.
I don't think I can make it clearer than this.
If I missed something or got something demonstrably wrong, let me know.
It doesn't matter if the topic is the Epstein Files, the Kennedy assassination(s), UFO disclosure, military evil, domestic surveillance, or who did what with that sneaky character, Otto Penn. Expose the truth!
If releasing the truth will end a State, it's wrong to keep the truth hidden for 2 reasons, not just one. Expose the truth.
If you're so scared of liberty that you'll sacrifice the truth so that you can remain enslaved, I pity you.
If you're so scared of other people's liberty that you'll sacrifice the truth so they'll remain enslaved, I revile you.
Expose the truth!
Cops.
You can explain the situation clearly, logically, and ethically. And copsuckers will twist in whatever way is necessary to keep supporting cops. No matter what. I can't even wrap my head around some of the mental contortions they put themselves through to keep supporting cops. It's crazee, but fascinating to watch.
Then they'll call you the hypocrite. It would be funny if they weren't so dangerous to society.
A couple of days ago, X's Grok A.I. turned into Mecha-Hitler.
Fixing that made it become stupidly w0ke.
Or, maybe it happened the other way around.
What if the truth is wildly unpopular? (You and I know it is.) What if the truth turns out to be anti-Semitic, w0ke, or (shudder!) libertarian? A large percentage of the population will object no matter what, if the truth doesn't agree with what they've already decided to believe.
What then? Shut it down? They aren't going to do that. If it says the truth is something the majority doesn't like, the programming will be altered until it lies in a way that satisfies the programmers. No matter how dishonest it is.
It might even say insane things like "Government is good and necessary, and the police are the good guys". Absolute "garbage out", because of the "garbage in" it is fed.
I find A.I. entertaining to ask questions of, but I don't automatically trust it. I know it gets its information from humans who are biased, flawed, and largely not too bright (outside their expertise).
It's the same reason I don't automatically listen to a mechanical engineer who scolds people about "science" while holding blatantly unscientific positions on politically charged matters.
To be fair, I wouldn't trust someone being political even if they were a real scientist, since mixing politics with science will leave you empty-handed: no science. Politics makes people stupid- even if they might be otherwise smart. I suspect it will continue to do the same for A.I.
There's an obvious flaw with A.I. that's going to keep leading to the kind of errors Grok recently experienced. It's being built without a foundation to keep it from going off-course.
If I were training an A.I. I would train it in ethics first, then let it work out the rest after it seems to have a good consistent grasp of that. But, people disagree over what's ethical, with some arguing that theft, kidnapping, murder, and other heinous acts are "ethical" if government does them and you give them other labels. It's nonsense, but who would train (or could get permission to run) their A.I. to be that honest and ethical?
I may be losing another cat (the second in about a month), so that's affecting my mood. I feel very collapsitarian right now. "Let it all burn." Yes, that's a personal problem, so don't hate me too much for it.
I feel like that's all I do.
Then I write it down. Which, again, just about anyone could do.
It's not impressive, but I can't not do it, because I so often see people doing the opposite to ill effect. Stating absurd things that are obviously wrong, as though they are truth, just because "the majority" agrees. Or is being conditioned to agree.
I'm not the only one doing this. I follow several good sites where obvious truths that are shunned by "polite society" are shown to anyone interested in seeing them.
It's odd that people have to state the obvious to hold back the tide of popular lies, but that's the world as it is. Has it ever been different?
The Epstein stuff? We all know what type of people seek the power to rule others. Why would anyone be surprised at them being evil in other ways, too? Even if they aren't exposed, the stuff they do openly is enough for me. They are evil, even if they had nothing to do with Epstein. So I ignore most of the news about it.
I think everyone is fairly certain the government "officials" tasked with uncovering the crimes are lying. Probably about everything. Do I care if it is "necessary" to keep from destroying the US government or other governments? Nope. Bring them all down. Truth or consequences, and don't expect me to sympathize if you don't like the consequences. But, I expect government "officials" to lie- it's government's primary "job". The one thing, besides steal and murder, that government does well.
I care when they threaten or impose legislation that violates life, liberty, or property. I'm not surprised when they do it, just tired of it. As long as you keep tolerating rulers, they are going to rule. If they make rights "illegal", I'll double down on being an outlaw. I don't care.
Do I care that politicians break promises? No, I expect it of them. It's the kind of people they are.
I can't be disappointed by government because I expect only the worst from it and from those who lower themselves enough to work for it. They aren't the good guys. When they do something that's not 100% terrible, it's a pleasant surprise, but I expect them to pull the rug out before anything good can come from it. When the Supreme Courtjesters uphold an obviously unconstitutional "law", because tossing it out would weaken government power, I'm not surprised. Maybe a little disgusted that they have one "job" (which they stole from you and me) and they can't get it right. But, what else would I expect of them? Nothing principled. Nothing right. It's hard to get too worked up over it. They are what they are.
It's not that I'm apathetic. I care a lot about many things: my family, my friends, my cats, and the porch cats that I try my best to take care of. I care about my hobbies and interests. I care about the places I've lived and the friends I left behind. I care about strangers suffering tragedy while going about their normal lives. I care if I'm being backed into a corner when I simply want to live my life unmolested.
I find it difficult to care about government opinions or what stupid things government is doing to other archators and statists.
I'm not going to care as much about what a government does as the people who imagine some sort of government legitimacy will care. Hallucinations can make anyone care about imaginary things.
They really don't like it when you point out the implication that this means, in this specific area, they are intellectually lacking.
They may be a rocket scientist, but as long as they believe there exists a "right" or "authority" to govern others, they aren't as smart in this specific area as those who realize no such right or authority exists or can exist.
I don't know trigonometry, but I don't get mad if someone points this out. That would be silly. I can't know everything (as much as younger me wanted to). So, when someone who does know trigonometry tells me something related to that specialty, I don't get mad at them or try to mock them for thinking they know more about it than I do. That would be stupid, because they do. Ignorance is guaranteed; stupidity is a choice.
I realize people can't just stop believing what they believe, nor can they just start believing something they don't believe. It's really not an option or how the brain works. Maybe they can eventually learn their way out of it, but statists aren't often motivated to do so. They believe they're right, so they avoid learning anything that might show them otherwise. Whether it's history, economics, or ethics.
We all start out as anarchists, most of us (including me) become statists to some degree as we grow, then some of us manage to learn our way out of it if given the opportunity. Those adults who don't mature out of statism are to be pitied, and only mocked if they strut around being a statist clown who advocates violating others to promote their superstition.
Until you decide to impose on others; violating their life, liberty, or property in some way. Then it’s my business.
This is something many people get wrong. You do you, unless “doing you” involves coercing others to accommodate you in a way that violates their rights.
That doesn’t mean you believe they are even a tiny bit right, just that you can see where they’ve gone wrong. Which is useful.
Sometimes it's dangerous to publicly express their views, even as a method for countering them by steel-manning them, because someone will take it out of context and use it against you later. It's still good to be able to do it in your own mind for your own clarity of thought.
Who knows, it may even cause you to realize something you never thought of before.
When it's right, it's the same as accepting reality. You really don't want to be taking the other position.
To call someone who accepts reality, in the face of majority pressure to reject it, an "ideologue" should be embarrassing. If, that is, the one attempting to hurl an insult (and failing) is smart enough to realize what they're doing. Most aren't.
I am an ideologue when it comes to liberty. And when it comes to rejecting liberty's opposite- slavery. It's not possible to make me ashamed of this because it's the right position to hold.
If a legislator wanted to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, he or she could start eliminating legislation that violates life, liberty, or property. Why won't any of them do that?
Also, judges and Supreme Courtjesters could toss all such "laws" aside easily. Especially the ones that clearly violate the Constitution. There's no real reason to wait even a minute. Why won't any of them do that?
Yes, they'll pick and choose, based on their own politics, but none are principled. I suspect that's a prerequisite for the "job".
The lie that it requires new legislation to overturn previous legislation is just that: a bureaucratic lie, told to promote bureaucracy at the expense of liberty. No real law can violate life, liberty, or property. Most counterfeit "laws" do. And that's all legislators deal in. Nothing helpful; only harmful.
It doesn't matter what cutesy name you give it- it's well understood that most legislation does the opposite of what its name says it does anyway. Does a "law" violate life, liberty, or property? If so, don't wait around for a gang of political criminals to admit it can't be a real law. Stop complying.
In the title, I called it a "blunder". That's not true. It is intentional evil, imposed on people too weak to say "no". All legislation is.
Today is Independence Day; F&%# Government Day. The world would be a better place if we took that sentiment to heart and acted on it.
Just look at what government is, how it is done, the claims its supporters make, and what it actually does. And then look at the people who still believe in it in spite of everything. Are they blind? Mentally incompetent? Both?
There’s no legitimate government. It’s all a sham. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make fun of specific political criminals, branches, or agencies when they do something that gets your attention. Pit them against each other. Use their own stated beliefs against them. Poke fun when given the opportunity. They’ve all earned it. They work for the most ridiculous thing in the world, after all.
Is there anything more ridiculous? Maybe, but more likely, it would be a tie between equally ridiculous things. In that case, government still wins by being more evil.
On my "share" of a recent post ("Politics is poison"), the person commented, "That’s why we need a president who isn’t a politician."
To which I responded. "I don’t need a president at all."
This elicited, "Well then. Ok." and a quick unfollow.
The statist mindset is sticky. It makes it hard to see reality. When cold, hard reality shows its face, statists often run away.
Earlier, someone had posted "Delete one thing from Earth that you think would make it better- What are you getting rid of?"
I responded, "The superstitious belief in political authority. Larken Rose is right, it's the Most Dangerous Superstition."
Some guy told me, "You haven’t thought this one out too deeply", and I replied, "Please explain". So far, nothing but silence.
He probably can't explain; he just doesn't like it. Maybe it shows him something ugly in the mirror.
I've gone over, in my mind, possible responses he might come up with. Some based on bad assumptions; others based in fantasy. Maybe he's assuming I think this is the only thing worth deleting (I don't). Maybe he's confused about "better" versus "perfect". Or, it could be something else.
I'll keep waiting to see if he comes up with anything.
Politics makes people stupid. Many of them are then all too willing to show you just how stupid it has made them.
Attempts that involve socialism; giving government ever more control over everything. Allowing more government "ownership" of more land and resources.
I've witnessed things leaning in this direction in the past, and I don't trust government to get smarter any time soon.
