To clarify my positions… the reasons for Freedom! and Christian Freedom! books.

  1. I do share a lot of articles from both left and right leaning sources.
    1. This is not to promote ideals all the time, but sometimes there are core issues that I do believe need to be addressed. So I am building awareness of the idea.
    2. Sometimes I actually do agree with the article.
    3. Sometimes I am sharing propaganda for the purpose of exposing propaganda.
  2. I am not a liberal or conservative, or even a middle leaning person.
    1. I am an anarchist at heart. That is, I don’t believe that there is any legitimacy to any government of man over man. If a person was truly good enough rule as a fair and just ruler, then they wouldn’t need to be voted for, or even use force to take a ruling position.
    2. All issues that seem to fall under left or right issues always seem to fall under the category of government intervention. Government intervention always means the application of theft and violence that have been sanctioned by a group of people in the form of a contractual law. To prove this, try doing something that harms no other person, but is still illegal, you will be confronted, fined, jailed, and maybe killed in the process.
  3. I do not believe that physical violence solves issues; and usually verbal violence doesn’t either.
    1. If you feel that you must use physical violence to make your point, then your point is invalidated by your very action.
    2. If you feel that yelling is your only option, I can only hope that it is because I am either far away, or there is a jet flying overhead. Otherwise it is probably because you are being illogical.
    3. If I use physical violence to defend myself, you can be sure that it isn’t because you are using verbal violence. It will be because you used physical violence on me. If you don’t want me to violate NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), then don’t violate NAP. Even then, if you do violate NAP, there is a good chance that I will just leave, rather than feed your violence.
  4. Wearing matching colors and jewelery matching with other people does not make you morally correct when it comes to violating my natural rights.
    1. Theft is theft even if people vote for it, and it is allowed by a select group of people, and there is a written permission, issued by someone other than the property owner, for it.
    2. Killing in any case that isn’t self defense or defense of another from imminent harm is still murder.
    3. Doing something morally wrong because you you were told to do it, is still morally wrong. Just following orders does not magically make it morally right.
  5. For the benefit of the greater good is not.
    1. If you have to violate natural rights for the greater good, you have just violated the whole meaning of the greater good.
    2. If you want to have a community where only certain people may live. Acquire the land, and only allow those people to live there.
    3. If you want to eliminate discrimination, you will always fail. However, if you want to eliminate illogical discrimination, then volunteer to educate people. Raise a family the doesn’t practice such discrimination. Raise money through volunteer transactions to acquire advertisement space to teach and motivate people to change behaviors.
    4. Voluntary transactions and associations to not need regulation. As soon as you regulate transactions you are threatening with violence against all who wouldn’t comply otherwise. That violates NAP.
    5. You cannot regulate poor or shoddy service. Even the best of skilled labor has an off day. Even the worst of skilled labor has value to people who don’t need the higher skilled people.
  6. Government Certifications and Regulations are monopolies that promise violence against those who want to practice free association and voluntary transactions.
    1. I decide to call my neighbor over to help me rewire my kitchen, because he can figure out the right way to do it according to the manufacturer specs. Why shouldn’t I let him do it, if I am willing to take the risk? Lets make this simple, my neighbor is an excellent driver, why can’t I pay them to chauffeur me around even though they don’t have the proper cab lic? If I am willing to take the risk, then those licenses are useless expenses.
    2. What is the better option? Let the people who are providing the service and the consumer of the service assess and take the risks based on their own assessments. Those businesses that have high risks will buy business insurance. If the insurance assumes that the person is a high risk liability, then they will charge more, and less for a low risk seller. This risk to cost issue will provide a more realistic and reliable solution than a government mandated certificate that guaranties violence against those who don’t have such paper, but still provide the service.

I could go on, but just read Freedom! which you can find at, and Christian Freedom! that you can find here.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.