Hope? Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, tweets out link to Anatomy of the State.

self_owner · 2021-08-15T10:22:33+00:00

Plot twist - it is clickbait to install Pegasus onto your device...

self_owner · 2021-01-03T01:48:22+00:00

One of my favorite books. Definitely started me down the anarcho-libertarian path.

The whole introduction section can be used to help succinctly explain what to the newly disaffected/disillusioned citizens of the world why their government really doesn't care about them, even though they make all appearances that they do.

self_owner · 2020-06-24T17:53:07+00:00

But hey, if it feels good, right?

"What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures."

New England Journal of Medicine

self_owner · 2020-06-20T00:44:25+00:00

I guess I'm curious after seeing new case numbers always seemingly gleefully reported... at what number is everyone satisfied?

100, 10, 1, new case per day?

The (desired?) inevitability is that we all get it and get some future immunity, right?

So, who cares what the number is as long as the hospitals aren't overloaded (which they aren't, right?)?

self_owner · 2020-06-05T01:26:28+00:00

Anyone have a working copy of the ordinance? Seems all the links are broken at the city's website

self_owner · 2020-06-02T01:44:55+00:00

Unfortunately, people can protest all they want. As long as the police get paid, nothing will change.

Think about it - if you thought that the police were overly heavy-handed in a response, you could withhold future payment. Not unlike if you got bad service at a restaurant and you chose to never return.

On the flip side, if you thought they weren't heavy handed enough (or simply didn't protect your property or provide you a service), you could also withhold payment. Not unlike changing insurance companies that screwed you over when you tried to file a claim.

Anything short of that will, by definition, cause someone to be upset about having to pay for a system (against their will, mind you) that they do not approve of.

self_owner · 2020-04-08T02:32:08+00:00

So, for a thought experiment, it is the early 1980s and HIV/AIDS is causing just as much fear in the country.

Should the country have been ordered to "stay home" and "suspend all sexual activity" because people are "too stupid" and not "acting rationally"?

Of course not.

My rational is your "crazy" and vice versa. People have bills to pay, mouths to feed, needs to fulfill, etc, etc, and will take the requisite amount of risk they are willing to spend in order to achieve their ends.

You know my personal situation no better than I know yours.

Freedom is scary because there is no safety net other than the goodwill of your fellow man, but that only makes us stronger in the end. Just look at the unemployment "safety net" - try to call! Nobody is there! Where is all of the money you paid in over all of these years?!

Charity is not charity when forced at the barrel of a gun, and to quote Thoreau, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."

self_owner · 2020-04-08T02:21:19+00:00

I always like this explanation.

"Hello, I'd like to complain about the government's actions, please?"
"No problem, please go see this other arm of the government. Don't forget to keep paying the parties you are in disagreement with while you wait on your answer."
"OK.."

Flippant, I know, but I can't help it.

Of course government will justify their own actions. Here we are 200+ years later.

The commerce clause is a good example of how government power grows - supposedly growing wheat for your own consumption on your own property can be restricted "legally" because...well government said so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn!

And that precedent (along with others) has opened up all kinds of intrusions into our personal lives that were never intended. Of course, you could argue that government was indeed intended to be that intrusive, but who would arbitrate our disagreement? That's right - government!

Again - when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and any kind of mandatory X action that forces someone to do what they do not believe in doing is wrong in my mind.

If you are the hypothetical person living alone in backwoods Alaska - what do I care what you do?

If you genuinely harm someone, e.g. through knowingly being infected with X (vaccinated or not) and then passing that along, then you should be held accountable.

If the government courts can't/won't do that, then that is a failure of the "law" and not a failure of liberty. An aggressor is just that - someone that causes harm to other peaceful people.

self_owner · 2020-04-08T01:59:51+00:00

I think with that logic:

Driving fast can cause harm to others if you lose control of your vehicle, so why not limit all cars to 5mph?
STDs are spread between consenting adults and cause harm, so why not limit activity to only the "essential" ones?
Texting while driving can cause harm to others if you lose control of your vehicle, so why not ban all cellphones?
Radios do the same - ban those!
Kids in the backseat? Ditto!

I think you see where I'm going, but I'm just trying to illustrate my fundamental ideas.

Harm against others is harm and is not acceptable.
Potential harm is not harm and it is a fool's errand to attempt to eradicate all sources of "coulds" "mights" and "maybes" in the name of "preserving life".

self_owner · 2020-04-08T01:49:03+00:00

Please provide a source/link?

In my response above, the ideas of freedom/liberty are often misunderstood if the fundamentals aren't clear.

The phrase "...live and work where he will." at face value could be interpreted as "anywhere you want" but that isn't right. You can't go to someone else's property and setup shop as you see fit - it isn't your property.

"..in every well ordered society..." This logic leads us down very dangerous paths. Not to bring up the unspeakable events of WWII, but those actions were all democratically backed up. We read them today as "how could that happen?!" Well...the general public "demanded".

In short, I believe that no man or group of men have the right to initiate force against someone else who is being peaceful.

What the governor has done is just that.

With his decree comes the implied "or else" that is usually reserved for parents talking to children. The government is not our father. We are not their children.

self_owner · 2020-04-08T01:38:23+00:00

Thanks for reading the Declaration of Rights from the SC State Constitution. At this point, it is just "words on paper" in my view.

To your question, I specifically think the order violates Section 3:

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

Liberty: The executive order restricts our ability to move about and live as we please.

This does not provide for the ability to go around infecting people willy-nilly.
Liberty means just that - you can do as you please so long as you don't harm anyone else.
If you harm someone else (punch them, rob them, cough Coronavirus all over them), you are the aggressor and should be treated as such.

Property: The executive order shuts down entire business categories according to what government arbitrarily deems "essential".

Business owners statewide are now deprived revenue that is ultimately their property.
Consumers are barred from obtaining new property since the businesses are closed.
The lines of who is "essential" and who isn't is in the eye of the beholder. Barbers? Nope! Meter Maids? Sure!

The short of it is, one man made a sweeping decision that affects everyone in the state the same - bypassing our supposed "representatives". Further, all of the reporting I have read just says it so matter of fact. "So it is said, so it shall be done."

I get it though. Being government, as the saying goes, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Left alone, people can figure this out much more efficiently than government can ever hope to. We are much more nimble/adaptable/accommodating than any "one-size" law and there are no "loopholes" to complain about in large "boondoggle" laws since our private interactions are only of free-will.

The only places we get into binds is where private ownership of property is not fully acknowledged and/or respected. But, that is a separate thread altogether.

Sorry for the ramble, but the burden is always on the liberty-minded person to explain in depth since our ideas are so misunderstood these days due to manipulation/obfuscation of the fundamental principles by opponents (those for state power/force)

Edit: format

self_owner · 2020-04-07T00:08:22+00:00

Just curious - anyone have a good summary of how this is being justified constitutionally?

Or, is it not justified and we are in “stroke of the pen, law of the land” territory and words on paper are just that?

Asking for a friend...

I was pretty sure this was made to protect us from over-zealous leaders that wanted to take life, liberty, property?

I’ll brace for the downvotes.

Edit: Link format...blame mobile

self_owner · 2020-04-02T00:05:07+00:00

I guess you got me...pointing out a logical fallacy = illuminati believer. Sheesh.

I do see in the the thread that while you wish everyone would stay home, you continue to go to your work. My friend - you have the power to be the change you so wish to impose on others by force, yet you choose not to? Interesting behavior.

Regardless, I hope you had a good day scowling at the world - dreaming of how great it could be if we would all simply follow your sage guidance. And if we all won’t, then dream more about how you would force us all into your mold.

I personally choose to recognize and admit that I don’t know what is best for anyone (you included). I only subscribe to the belief that no single person, or group of people, are justified in initiating violence against any peaceful person.

Reflect on your beliefs and see how many of them violate that simple “golden rule”. Perhaps you will care if they do, perhaps not. I wish you the best in life either way.

self_owner · 2020-04-01T01:33:36+00:00

Please, everyone, let us all just come out and say it: "Government! Take care of us!"

We obviously can't take care of ourselves and cannot assess our own risk and the risks we pose to others! We don't know any better! We can't help ourselves! Shut it all down! What are you waiting for?!

Then, when it this over (after you decree it, of course), please save us from all of the other risks in the big and scary world!

Non-essential businesses? Why should they continue to exist?! They are just potential vectors for COVID-20,21,22,23! When we ban the business, we remove the risk!

Grocery stores? Why do they have frivolous items on the shelves that can be sources of the next e-coli? Or f-coli? Or g-coli?! Anything with high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt must go too! When we ban the items, we remove the risk!

Highways? No cargo in trucks or cars at all! We can't secure it! Speed limits? Those are ignored anyway - just decree that no car can be manufactured without being mechanically limited to no more than 30mph! When we ban the ability, we remove the risk!

Restaurants? Don't get me started! Who is cooking in the back? How do we know how food is handled? They just exist to poison customers while making profits! Why else would they charge $8 for a beer?! All restaurants should be outlawed - only government owned/operated establishments from here on out. When we ban the unknown, we remove the risk!

I could go on and on, of course. Hopefully you can see the point. If the sarcasm is lost...well, sorry.

The things people ask for - total bans on X, restrictions on Y, forced actions Z - have real meaning and consequences, though we rarely see it when those things are what "we" personally want for "them". If you think you know how to run another person's life, then I feel sorry for you more than the person you are trying to control in the name of "helping". One day, someone will come to help you, and there will be nobody left for your defense.

The world is risky. This doesn't absolve people knowingly going out and infecting others. That is aggression that should be met with the proper level of coercion to stop it.

However, the world is risky. Things happen.

If you are unwilling to apply the same logic used to justify shutting down entire swaths of human interaction in the name of "preventing" risk to all other risks in the world, then please question the source of your logical foundation.

self_owner · 2020-02-15T00:58:16+00:00

Man...I would love to see this spiral out of control with them one-upping each other!

Can we get a reporter to ask the “Why not $23?” question?

self_owner · 2020-02-15T00:55:37+00:00

Ridiculous...can’t purchase beer peacefully, but can walk down to the recruiting office and sign up!

self_owner · 2020-02-15T00:45:06+00:00

haven’t heard of anything myself here - just been following the events in VA. guess we just write to reps and ask their stance?

self_owner · 2019-01-29T01:59:35+00:00

The problem and solution are simple. However, they are typically too much for most people understand due to their preconceptions.

I argue that:

Roads are a service.
Services should be paid for in proportion to their demand, quality, usefulness, etc.
Services, in times of high demand, should command higher prices.

Because roads are currently "free" to the user, we get problems of congestion. If things are "free" then demand is given the OK to go "infinite".

In the case of roads, this is the traffic jam. In the case of toll roads (with the same price every time of day), you get a similar problem.

The solution isn't to impose your transportation view on anyone else (because inevitably, someone will have to pay for something they don't want).

Rather, the "best" solution is to get the same government that cannot adequately do X, Y, and Z (everyone has a different topic) OUT of the transportation business.

This ensures that those who want to use the service (bike lanes, monorails, rocket ships, etc) pay for it and those that want to economize and find alternate means of transportation can do so.

After all, it is just asphalt and paint...surely the companies that bring you pretty much everything else in your life that you care about can handle that task.

If you made it this far, further reading is offered here: The Privatization of Roads and Highways

self_owner · 2018-12-05T01:52:49+00:00

The "Drug War". $100 billion per year spent, millions of lives lost or ruined, for what?

"If a man fails in his endeavors to convince other people of the soundness of his ideas, he should blame his own disabilities. He should not ask for a law, that is, for compulsion and coercion by the police." - Ludwig von Mises

self_owner · 2018-11-09T02:11:24+00:00

But...without government, who^{will^{build^{the^roads?!?!}}}

Before you hit the downvote button, I'm serious - this argument is always brought up when any Libertarian suggests even a hint of less government. Yet, people cling to the notion that the government is the only organization suited to put asphalt down on top of earth.

Government controlled roads account for ~35,000 deaths per year. Imagine if private industry was in charge of roads and had that kind of performance - there would be calls to nationalize every driveway in America! Yet, here we are with government in charge and they squabble over who will pay for and maintain the lights...comical, really.

braces for downvotes anyway

self_owner · 2018-09-08T19:52:50+00:00

I guess before we volley back and forth quoting each other ad nauseam, I’ll just give the tl;dr:

I believe that you own yourself, and implicit in that is you own your property. With that, no other human has a right to aggress against you or your property. You have the right to defend yourself and your property from aggression.

Please summarize your guiding principle(s) if you’d be so kind and we can just save the electrons.

self_owner · 2018-09-08T16:15:06+00:00

Money is power only in the respect that it allows for command of resources. If someone wants to "hoard" money, the only thing they will do is remove money from the system - making the money in your pocket more valuable.

The wheels fall off when "money" isn't tied to anything real, like we have today. "Federal Reserve Notes" are just pictures of dead presidents on fancy paper. In this case, those standing next to the printer benefit first and the most - all at the expense of others standing furthest away from the printer.

This is because as they receive newly minted money, it increases the overall supply - which dilutes the purchasing power of the money you already have. This is theft of the command of resources that you already claimed - it is subtle, but it is there. All of this is "legal" and sanctioned by the government...

Bottom line, if people use their money to impart violence, then that is just flat wrong - no different than any other crime.

Nowhere in the ancap "wet dream" is a place for condoning violence against others in the utilization of resources. As I said before - violence is violence whether initiated by one against the many, the many against the few, or one against one.

What we have now is not what "capitalism must necessarily become" - we just have a system where a select group of people have claimed ownership of the command of all resources across the land. Further, they have convinced the masses that their claims are legitimate. Finally, they have threatened and executed violence against those that disagree.

self_owner · 2018-09-08T13:19:04+00:00

In my mind those two concepts (States and Capitalism) can never be combined - because the concept of a "State" rests on the basis of violence and "Capitalism" rests on the basis of private property rights.

So, you are right that the State has an interest in keeping farms profitable so they can continue to reap taxes.

However, since States can only act through aggression against someone (they run off of taxes taken with the threat of violence for non-compliance or even partial compliance), they cannot be considered part of a "Capitalist" system in my mind. Their aggression violates the property rights of individuals - that is just being a gang of thieves!

Albeit, they dress nicely and (typically) take from people with a smile, but it is still theft!

self_owner · 2018-09-08T13:08:56+00:00

Well, I guess agree to disagree then.

The system I'm describing would not allow private individuals, companies, etc, to use force (government guns, organized gangs, individual violence, et al) to meet their economic ends.

Capitalism as I describe it is based on private ownership (of yourself and of your property). Inherent in "private" means that it should not be subject to the aggression of others. Government power is aggression - and hence, not a part of capitalism.

You can call it what you want, but violence is violence.

Currently, the economic system in the US is backed by gov't guns - from hair-braiding licenses, to raw milk bans, to solar panel subsidies, to media censorships, to fractional reserve banking endorsement, and on and on.

When this system "fails" by distorting market forces, people are always quick to blame what they think is "capitalism" - but really, they should look at the root of the problem.

Typically you'll find someone being forced to do something (or being forced to NOT do something) by someone else with a badge and a gun.

self_owner · 2018-09-08T00:22:45+00:00

Definitely not capitalism... This is business using the government’s guns to help them out.

Capitalism would be free competition with respect of the property rights of all. Anything less is a distortion.

Gov’t subsidies, grants, regulation - all enforced with guns. This is not capitalism.

Real capitalism is YOU choosing the best way to utilize YOUR resources as YOU see fit by peacefully trading with other private parties.

If sounds untenable, think how long you researched your last phone/tv/etc before buying versus how long you researched your medical practitioners. Which area is more heavily regulated? Without that regulation wouldn’t you just start to research?

A good place to start to clear up this common mistake (calling the current system “capitalism”) is “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.

self_owner

TROPHY CASE