It's About Principle

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

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 also 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 high the seller prices it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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 leberal 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

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.