George H. Smith, a very good anarchist spokesman, republishing an excellent article on the philosophical reasoning for anarchy. It’s fairly long, and skipping over won’t help!
For too long now, the American people have allowed themselves to be persuaded that the government’s job is to take care of us: to feed us, clothe us, house us, educate us, raise our children, heal our infirmities, manage our finances, protect us from our enemies, guard us against all dangers (real and imaginary), and provide for our every need.
Where Americans go wrong is in failing to recognize that there’s always a catch to such devil’s bargains purportedly carried out for the good of all society.
When we have an over-inflated tire, we know that over-inflation will cause a Blowout, while deflation results in a flat tire – those are clear and simple definitions which don’t require a genius to understand. Driving on a flat tire will destroy the tire and the rim will soon follow. One would think that even a bureaucrat would grasp that, but we can only imagine that’s “too simple”.
Politics and religion are highly interesting topics; but unlike other interesting topics, such as science, we don’t need to appeal to authorities when defending our basic beliefs in these fields. We can think for ourselves from the ground up in politics and religion, and when we do—when we actually take the time and effort needed to arrive at reasonable beliefs in politics and religion—the results may qualify as legitimate accomplishments in which we should take pride.
This morning I’ll be heading for my designated polling place. Only one person gets my vote, while all the rest will get “None of the Above”. There is NOBODY in America who can (and WILL) fix the mess which our Rulers have burdened we Humans with, which makes “voting” a useless waste of time.
There will be no vote available for Dissolution, but I’ll work that onto my ballot anyway. For human beings to be truly Free, Dissolution must apply to every GOVERNment at every level!
The rest of this page is devoted to some good links of the day.
Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people, which is to say, in restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis. Since freedom is indivisible, it makes little sense to compartmentalize it; but there are two basic types of freedom: social and economic.
According to the current usage, liberals tend to allow social freedom, but restrict economic freedom, while conservatives tend to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom. An authoritarian (they now sometimes class themselves as “middle-of-the-roaders”) is one who believes both types of freedom should be restricted.
But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom? Unfortunately, something without a name may get overlooked or, if the name is only known to a few, it may be ignored as unimportant. That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians.
Posted on Personal Liberty August 12, 2016 by Bob Livingston
The Obamacare deathcare system is dying and it may be completely dead before the next president is sworn into office.
As The Hill reported Thursday, two major insurers in the last month – Aetna and Anthem – both reversed course on their plans to expand in the marketplace. The five largest insurers say they are losing money on Obamacare. Several other high-profile insurers are raising concerns about the mix of consumers (not enough young, healthy people and too many old and sick people are signing up) and whether they can continue selling Obamacare plans.
Liberals will generally concede the right of every individual to his “personal liberty,” to his freedom to think, speak, write, and engage in such personal “exchanges” as sexual activity between “consenting adults.” In short, the liberal attempts to uphold the individual’s right to the ownership of his own body, but then denies his right to “property,” i.e., to the ownership of material objects. Hence, the typical liberal dichotomy between “human rights,” which he upholds, and “property rights,” which he rejects. Yet the two, according to the libertarian, are inextricably intertwined; they stand or fall together.
by Clarice Feldman at American Thinker, 12 June 2015
Here in both American in Britain voters are torn as to whether or not to jump off the globalization, open borders bandwagon and government by unelected bureaucrats or voting to retake sovereignty and re-establish free markets. The polls show the sentiments for retaining the status quo or starting over (Brexit) seem too close to call, I predict Britain will leave. I hope we, too, will choose to return to less intrusive more accountable government, sovereignty and freedom by rejecting Hillary Clinton ourselves.
Jack Perry: “I suppose we’ve all overdosed on hearing “Freedom isn’t free!” for the past few days. Your humble scribe is pleased to report that freedom actually is free. It’s government that isn’t free. Yes, there is a difference. Even the founding documents of this nation agree that freedom isn’t bestowed upon us by the government via human sacrifice in some orgy of blood and violence, but from God. My Bible does not say that God received a purchase order from the United States government that sets them up as a vendor to sell freedom to us….”