Thought Spots

Non-Violence is Sacred

2010-02-26T20:42:00.017-06:00

Joe Stack, the troubled soul who murdered via airplane, was angry towards the government which he expressed in his suicide note.

Now I fear that authorities will begin to increase surveillance on those critical of government. I believe the bar will be lowered as to what is expressed that will put someone like me on their list.

So this is to you, Mr government surveillance person. While I am critical of the system that is government, I do not hold any individual or groups of individuals within government responsible. Even if I did, I would never contemplate or support in any way any violent act or threat.

The reason I do not hold government officials responsible for the actions of government is because it is not them that are responsible for the existence of government. It is the people outside of government that are responsible for its existence.

The government exists because the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of the people want it to exist. Many may want it reformed in one way or another, but they all want it to continue to exist.

I believe that society would run better without a coercive monopoly (which is what government is). I believe that voluntary interactions and the natural and widespread practice of buying and selling services would provide all that government does in terms of social services, and do it far more efficiently and effectively.

I also realize that my dream of a voluntary society free from government tyranny will not come in my lifetime, not even close. I am at peace with that.

Let me also firmly establish my commitment to the Non-Aggression Principle. Please look this up in Wikipedia.

I disagree with those who support the existence of government, and I do so because government is violent by nature. It is the violence of government that I am in opposition to. Taxation is coerced, coercion is violence, therefore the system that is government is a system based on violence. It is the initiation of the use of violence that I oppose, and the system of government initiates this violence through forced taxation.

Since I am in opposition to violence, it would be hypocritical to say the least for me to engage in violence to oppose violence. Witness how absurd it sounds: "I am against violence, so let's throw bricks through store windows."

I think if Joe Stack were aware of the violent nature of government he would have had a chance to see the hypocrisy of his actions. Joe, in his opposition of the tyranny of taxation, has only made it worse for peace-loving people like me in society.

So just to be very clear, Mr government surveillance person, keep an eye on me if you want. You will that my actions and statements demonstrate me to be a person who is deeply committed to a non-violent world. I will continue to pay the taxes that are forced from me because I do not want to be thrown into a cage where I will likely and knowingly be raped.

I will comply with the commands of government because if I don't I will be aggressed upon. I fully understand the trade-off. Just about anything is better than a rape room. For me to become violent is to open the door to my own rape-room hell.

I am not so utterly foolish.

I will oppose the system of violence that is government using peaceful and lawful means.

And I will obey the coercive master because I have no choice.

It's About Principle

2009-12-16T19:49:00.002-06:00

Shocking! No government?? Panic in the streets!

The Non-Aggression Principle is air-tight. No sane person denies it. Yet somehow it just doesn't apply to government.

It really is mind boggling when you think about it.

It was principle that abolished slavery for the good of all. It will be principle that will abolish government for the good of all.

The Fiction of Fair Market Price in Eminent Domain

2009-11-15T19:55:00.006-06:00

People get confused about the government paying "fair market value" on a piece of private property they want to confiscate at the threat of violence, or in double-speak: "Eminent Domain" (ED).

Fair market value can only occur in a market. When a gun is placed on a property owner's neck and told he will sell or else, this is not a market. It is simply violence.

They do use the word fair, don't they. How fair is having a gun to the neck?

A price can only be determined by the agreement between a buyer and a willing seller. An unwilling seller (one who is being victimized by ED) doesn't offer a price, so there is no market and therefore no market price.

To use comparable sales prices (comp) in the area as a measure of fair market value is not necessarily an accurate pricing mechanism. A price on a property can be agreed on by a buyer that is well over the highest comp.

It depends on how much the buyer wants it and how motivated the seller is to sell it. It also depends on the nature of the property. There may not have been many sales in the immediate area, or the condition of the properties vary. There are many variables. I personally sold a house well above any recent comps in the area.

There is and cannot ever be any "fair" or any "market" in Eminent Domain.

The Vicitmization of Jimmy McCall by Government

2009-11-15T19:51:00.006-06:00

A heart-breaking story of how brazen, ruthless and just plain evil government can be. They tore down his house he was building and sent him the bill. This is after reneging on an 18 month time period for him to finish the house.

Blatant land grab right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPb2WiT-cKc

http://www.tinyurl.com/yku7e6u

The Fallacy of Police Protection

2009-08-29T21:17:00.002-05:00

Say you want to hire a private security guard to protect your property. What is the likelihood of you selecting Bob who lives down the street and who you've observed stealing things off of your lawn several times, and denies it after you later confront him about it?

Zero, zip, nada.

The government steals money from you and I via taxation and they simultaneously claim that their job is to protect us and our property.

Any questions?

A Moral End Cannnot Justify an Immoral Means

2009-08-28T22:57:00.012-05:00

There is no goal or objective that can justify the initiation of the use of violence or the threat of violence. There is no moral end that can justify an immoral means.

Before going over an example, let's put aside unrealistic questions such as "is it immoral for a starving man near death to steal some food to stay alive if there is no alternative for him?"

Taxation is coerced, coercion is not coercion without the threat of violence and the ultimate use of violence if challenged. Therefore, taxation is violence.

Roads, defense, health care, helping the poor, whatever the well-intentioned program, is financed and carried out thru taxation which is the threat of violence that will actually come to violence if challenged.

No end can justify the initiation of violence as a means.

Let's Put Government in Perspective

2009-08-08T12:46:00.009-05:00

When it comes to topics like politics and government programs such as "health care reform", I think it is important to keep a broad enough perspective on things.

Government and politics are in the arena of social organization.

Most "u.s. citizens" have been socialized to believe that a government is the only way to organize society. In fact, the phrase "organize society" in any form is rarely mentioned.

So when it comes to how a society should be organized, shouldn't everyone in society have a say?

Many upon hearing this question will think "but we do have a say: by voting." But this kind of reaction is the product of a shallow perspective. It does not come from a solid understanding that democracy is just one way to organize a society.

We have all inherited a system of organizing our society that relies on the gross violation of the non-aggression principle.

I hope that eventually people will view the current way our society is organized as unthinkable as slavery.

Ugent! Scary Blog Post Here, Send to flag@whitehouse.gov

2009-08-08T12:35:00.020-05:00

This blog post should be reported to the U.S. Government immediately!

Here's my response to this whitehouse blog post:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Dear Big Brother,

I'm going around and saying all kinds of scary things about Obama's health care plan such as:

Where in the constitution does it authorize the federal government to force people to buy health insurance?
Most cost estimates the government has given on a new programs have been grossly inaccurate, so the chances that 1 trillion dollars will be all it costs is highly unlikely.
Forcing young people to purchase health insurance will be done simply to make it possible for the insurance companies to cover the costs of being forced by the government to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and never mind if this is a moral thing to do to those young people who may otherwise choose not to buy health insurance."

Scary words, aren't they? No one should be able to say that! We must protect people from such words. People cannot think for themselves. They must be protected from the opinions of people who are not in the government.

So to you Mr whitehouse blogger, why don't you just go and have me arrested? That's what you really want anyway, isn't it?

The truly scary things are the words coming out of your mouth.

Signed:

One who despises people who employ agents that point guns at people that harmed no one and force them to do things they don't want to do and force them to not do harmless things that they want to do.

P.S.

I believe that Internet will be credited with being the catalyst that enabled the masses to realize that organizing society around the initiation of the use of force is immoral and should be abolished. So, Mr whitehouse blogger, if you really want to cram forced health care down our throats you should start censoring the Internet like the chinese dictators. I, of course, do realize that flag@whitehouse.gov is just the u.s. government's first steps down that slippery slope. You need to start very gradually, by spreading fear with regards to the Internet. Once you get enough fear generated, then you'll step in and "regulate" to "protect" us from it, i.e., censor it.

I abhor violence of any kind except self defense and I will *not* initiate violence against anyone including any government. I will not resist government oppression as I am not a violent person. Let it be perfectly clear that I intend to obey the laws of the U.S. government even though many of those laws are harmful, oppressive, destructive and immoral. Yes, I despise Mr whitehouse blogger, but I absolutely will never, ever do anything to harm him in any way. I will, however, exercise my right to free speech, and will refuse to be intimidated by the true intent of this whitehouse blog post which is to chill free speech.

Government "Health Care" Can Never Be Good

2009-07-31T22:20:00.006-05:00

Page after Page of Reasons to Hate Obamacare

The Bill

Drug Regulations Cause Millions of Deaths Each Year, Study Finds

Elderly's Medical Expenses Rise

Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics

The Medicare Ponzi Scheme by John Stossel

How to Really Fix Health Care

We Already Have Socialized Health Care, See How It's Working

Government Can Be Hazardous to Your Health

The Law Most Likely to Kill You

Here's What You Voted For...

2009-07-30T19:03:00.002-05:00

To enlarge, start video then click on it, it should open in a new window where you can make it full-screen.

I Hate to Say I Told You So

2009-07-25T21:04:00.004-05:00

I actually consciously refrained from saying that Obama would dissapoint those who messianistically supported his election.

When an organization itself, in its structure and foundation, is immoral, then does it matter who is the figurehead?

Now, more and more people are becomming disillusioned with Obama.

Government = taxation = coercion = violence = immoral.

Government is "legally" sanctioned with the right to the initiation of the use of force. To initiate the use of force is universally recognized as immoral.

What good can come from the initiation of the use of force? What good can come from Government? These two questions are identical and have the same answer:

Nothing.

It's Not the Government

2009-07-25T21:00:00.002-05:00

I have to keep reminding myself that as much as I hate Government because of its fundamentally immoral nature, it is not the Government that is responsible. It is my neighbors and co-workers and all the people in the street who support it. They are the ones responsible for Government.

Not for its existence, it was there before any of us were born, but for its sustenance. People believe Government is beneficial, even necessary -- flawed, but necessary. Government would not exist if people detested it in the same way most people detest slavery.

This is What You Get

2009-06-05T17:24:00.012-05:00

Ding Zilin, mother of 17-year-old pro-democracy demonstrator Jiang Jielian who was killed during the 1989 army crackdown on Tiananmen protesters, weeps as she talks about the event in her Beijing flat during an interview on April 7, 2009. Twenty years on, Ding's pain is still as raw as it was when her son was shot through the heart in the army crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters in China, an event that she says broke her. (PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images)

When you ask the government for health care, this is what you ultimately get with it.

Multiply the unimaginable anguish of this woman by millions and you have just a small example of what the institution of government provides.

Without government there simply would not be wars. There would not be the need for revolutions.

Just remember what you are supporting when you look to government to solve a problem.

Government = Violence

2009-02-15T22:31:00.007-06:00

I like to keep things simple. I also like to get to the root of issues.

If you don't pay your taxes, you will be forced into a cage where, if you are male, you are at risk of being raped.

I have things I need. I willingly, voluntarily pay for them. I don't have any problem paying for things I need. I don't need to be forced to pay for the things I need. I'm sure you feel the same way.

The government, however, is forcing me to pay for certain things that it has decided it will provide and makes it illegal for anyone else to compete with it (roads, electricity, protection, etc).

Threatening to throw someone into a cage who has not violated anyone's rights is every bit as violent as a thug in the street holding up a pedestrian for his money. The thug is being violent. So is the government.

It's a shame that society thinks that it is necessary to organize itself around violence. Future generations will look back at us today in the same way we look back at the days of the Spanish Inquisition.

Sting Should Not Apologize

2009-02-15T21:54:00.010-06:00

I came across an article where Sting was defending the fact that he owns seven homes around the world.

It's not clear what the criticism was, but it's quite a familiar line of thought coming from those with a liberal leaning. Wealthy people are often vilified simply because they have a lot of money. Never mind most of them worked far harder and took on more risk than their critics in order to provide products or services that people actually wanted.

Sting is very wealthy because he chose a risky career path where most entrants fail to make enough money to barely scrape by on. It turned out that he is a highly skilled and talented musician who provided enjoyment to millions of people around the world.

His money came from people shelling out $15 for a CD, $20 to $75 or so for a concert, and from radio stations who used his music to sell advertising. All of these people made their own decision to give this money to Sting (indirectly) because they wanted to consume his product.

When millions, many repeatedly, spend money for his valued product, it does add up. This is how Sting became wealthy. He earned every dollar in an honest and productive manner.

Why should he be criticized for spending the money that people happily gave him? What is shameful about someone who has provided value to millions of people spending his wealth?

He can probably afford 27 mansions. If Sting wants to own 100 homes, I say go for it! Enjoy your wealth Sting, any way you want (as long as it's not harming anyone of course, and he hasn't harmed anyone by his spending).

So Sting, please don't apologize for your enjoying the fruits of your highly treasured labor -- the results of the wealth of entertainment that you gave to millions.

The Darwinian Elephant in the Room

2009-02-14T13:55:00.008-06:00

Just how big does the elephant in the middle of the kitchen have to get before people start to see it?

The "evolution debate" is not about evolution vs creationism or whether evolution is taught in schools.

It's about violence.

Government violence.

It is the coercion (violence) of government that has monopolized education and forcefully extracts money from people to fund it. It is government that politicizes education by the sheer force of the gun of taxation and monopolistic law.

If government was not involved in education, there would only be private schools -- lots of them -- competing with each other providing affordable, quality education. If there are enough people in the education market who want their kids taught creationism, the market will provide it.

There will be more than enough people who want evolution taught and no creationism taught for there to be a wide selection of private schools to choose from.

End of controversy.

Who cares if people want to teach their kids ignorance? OK, I care, but I don't feel I have the right to have someone point a gun at them and tell them they can't or that they have to teach evolution. That's just plain immoral. Just like government.

Now you know why I'm so tired of the evolution/creationism debate.

Everyone involved in it is blind.

I am not Anti-Government

2009-01-31T18:45:00.004-06:00

I see government as pure evil. It is pure evil to use the initiation of the use of force (violence) to do anything. But I am not anti-government.

Getting rid of government is not something that is done. Government will go away when people finally see the violence that is government.

There will be no need to overthrow or force them out of society. It will go away in the same way that domestic violence will go away when all children are raised in genuinely loving and caring homes.

To get rid of the violence that is government is to talk about it. Raise awareness that it is what it is: VIOLENCE! UGLY HEART-BREAKING FAMILY DESTROYING BABY MURDERING ECONOMY RAVAGING VIOLENCE.

Chaos and Destruction

2009-01-31T18:30:00.008-06:00

Try a thought experiment. Try to think of way to promote peace and prosperity, directly or indirectly, through the means of the initiation of the use of force (IUF). Self defense is not IUF, it is the protection from IUF.

Spend a few minutes on this. Remember that asking a government to do anything is using IUF (taxation is not voluntary, it is only obtained through IUF).

Now spend a few minutes thinking of ways to promote peace and prosperity through voluntary interactions (think free market).

I'd be interested in any well thought out ideas to promote peace and prosperity via the initiation of the use of force.

I don't see how anything but chaos and destruction can be the result of the initiation of the use of force. By observing governments, it may appear that peace and prosperity may be the result of some of their actions, but upon deeper examination there will be a violation of someone's basic rights at the very least.

I, Mr. government official, want to do project A. Project A will be good for the economy, good for peace and prosperity. So I will go to the marketplace and steal money from the people there and implement project A. Can you see the chaos and destruction here?

If project A was perceived as necessary, money would be available by the very nature that it is desired. There is no need to steal money from people who already want to do something.

The initiation of the use of force is violence and can only result in one thing and one thing only: chaos and destruction.

If You Were Poor...

2009-01-31T18:16:00.004-06:00

If you were poor and didn't have enough money to eat, what would you choose as your first option for help? Would you ask someone to go out and find a person of means and point a gun at him and take some of his money against his will to give to you?

I'm willing to bet that's not your first option. Especially if there are charities that solicit funds from the public on a purely voluntary basis. I bet you would opt for this kind of help instead.

By asking the government to help the poor (or anyone else for that matter), you are choosing the first option. You are choosing to have someone else use the force of a gun to obtain money from others against their will.

Why Does Obama Get to Be Black?

2009-01-22T19:30:00.011-06:00

His mother was white, his father was black. So he's black. Can someone point out any logic to this? Let's put aside the real truth that he is a human and nothing else and go with the popular labels.

The definition of African American in Wikipedia allows for partial African blood, so accordingly, Obama can be called African American.

Obama's mother has English, Irish, Dutch, French and German heritage. By using the same logic [sic] that makes it possible to call Obama African American, it is equally valid to call him European American.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call Obama a European/African American or an African/European American?

Why the complete disregard for his European heritage?

Why does a half black, half white man get to be black?

A Case Against Coercion

2008-08-23T17:51:00.005-05:00

This highly compelling article gives rational and logical arguments that explain why governments fail so miserably at their stated intentions and how a free market could solve problems such as crime and security.

The article is at times unnecessarily academic in tone, but the arguments are so strong and compelling as to be worth the moderate extra effort. At the end of the article, the author proposes a solution to the problem of government that I feel is over-optimistic, but kudos to him for at least proposing a solution.

Would Corporations Exist in a Coercion-Free Society?

2008-06-05T20:46:00.013-05:00

A corporation in the U.S. is a government backed, or to be more precise, a coercion-backed entity designed to protect the people who are running it from liability. Without a group of people with the sanctioned right to initiate the use of force (government), there would be private conflict resolution organizations and insurance companies that would handle issues. It would be up to them and the people who contract with the companies as to how much accountability there would be. In other words it would be up to the market. And the great thing is, with your wallet, you would have a say in how it would work!

For example, if company A is negotiating a contract with company B, the issue of conflict resolution and/or contract insurance would come up. Let's say company B is structured in the style of a coercion-supported corporation designed to shield the people who run it from being responsible for its actions. If I were in the shoes of company A's resolution/insurance companies, I would probably charge a lot more to get involved in a contract that involves a company whose principles wanted to protect themselves from accountability.

So company A has an immediate financial incentive to seek market partners who are willing to accept accountability and shun ones who aren't. Company B has put itself in a market disadvantage. The market would immediately recognize this and provide organizations that have structures that enforce personal accountability of its principles. Not to mention company B would most likely be paying more to its conflict/insurance companies.

These are huge market disadvantages to coercively enforced liability shielding tactics.

Would you buy stock in company B? Would you purchase its products or services if you had a choice of a more responsible company?

I think it's a good exercise to ponder on how a free market can resolve virtually any issue and supply any need. With a little practice you can figure it out on your own. It's all about risks and incentives with built-in mandatory win-win outcomes.

A truly free market is a phenomenally beautiful thing. It really is a crying shame that smiley faced politicians scramble to continue crapping all over it.

What's happened to our quality of life?

2008-04-06T14:57:00.006-05:00

25% of Americans are lonely.

We don't spend time with our neighbors like we used to.

We spend a lot of time sitting in front of a flickering light-emitting box.

Many spend a lot of time viewing information delivered from a source containing a near-infinite amount of content.

How many times have you seen a group of people in a social setting with at least one person having a solitary conversation with a small plastic box?

What has happened to our quality of life? What can we do to improve it?

Here's what I've done so far:

Sold my fixer-upper house and rented (More time to pursue more fulfilling activities)

Got rid of my television.

Made an effort to exercise in a more social setting (volleyball)

Going to group meetings in areas I have an interest in

Unfortunately, much of the TV addiction migrated to the internet. Here's an internet timer/limiter that may help. I'm going to give it a try. If it doesn't meet my needs and no-one else offers what I want, I'll make it myself and sell it.

How Government Causes the Religion Wars

2008-03-07T20:08:00.016-06:00

There has been an ongoing fight in the U.S. between fundamentalist religious groups and secularists about what should or shouldn't be taught in public schools concerning evolution and creationism.

There's a real heat to this debate.

Why is that?

The answer is government. It is government that forces people in society to fund public schools and compels children to attend. Were it not for this group of people sanctioned with the right to the initiation of force, there would be little reason for a fight on this subject. Parents who would want creationism taught to their kids would simply choose schools that offer it. Parents who wish to avoid having fantasies rendered as truth would take them to a school that teaches science.

This fight is a battle to have the government point guns at their opponents in order to force them to do things their way.

Take any controversial subject where government is involved. Remove the guns (government) and see if there's anything left to fight about.

This is the state of our society. Think about it for a while. Is this the best way to organize a society -- to give a group within it the right to point guns at others? Sure, the Constitution is the "rule book" that was given to them. Just look how effective that's been.

They gave them guns, remember?

I'm OK With the Mysteries of Life

2008-03-06T21:53:00.003-06:00

I don't have any problem not knowing how life began.

I don't have any problem not knowing what happens after I die.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that I cease to exist in any conscious way.

I wonder if the reason that some people adopt a fantasy about these types of things is to manage some kind of anxiety that they provoke.

When I see a photograph of galaxy with its "clouds" of stars and its awesome beauty, I experience a feeling of awe and wonder. I wonder how the heck it got there, how it formed, and what else might be out there that we haven't detected yet.

I love the mysteries of how ants communicate, or what elephants might think or feel, or why are there mosquitoes??

...But I have no inspiration to make something up -- to adopt a story about some being who "must have" designed the universe. That's the only argument that's at the basis of any creationist's viewpoint. "Well, it simply must have been designed. It's too complex to have been formed by chance..."

There are things we do know (earth is round, gravity makes things fall to the ground...) and there are things that we don't know. That's it. Either we know it or we don't. If someone wants to make up a story about the things they don't know, I have no problem with that.

I feel no need.