This is What You Get

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 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

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, will most likely get constantly 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 rape room 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

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

So Sting, please don't apologize or defend your enjoyment of the result of the wealth of entertainment that you gave to millions.

The Darwinian Elephant in the Room

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

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

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...

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 find a person of means and point a gun at him and take some of his money 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?

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

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 offering a solution.

Would Corporations Exist in a Coercion-Free Society?

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 it!

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 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?

• 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

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

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.