RSS Feed items

My last "bleeding obvious" article addressed the absurd notion that
anyone could ever be morally OBLIGATED to disregard his own moral
conscience. But the concepts of "authority" and "government" depend
entirely upon the insane notion that, at least in some cases, it is
BAD for people to do what they think is RIGHT (if the politicians
call it "illegal"), and GOOD for people to do what they think is
WRONG (if "the law" commands it). Statism relies upon such
insanity. But that is not the only way to demonstrate the insanity
of the superstition called "government." (This next one, many of
you have seen before.)

Question: Can you give to someone else a right that you don't have?

Here are your two possible answers:

YES, I can delegate to others a right that I do not have. That
would mean that even though it is IMMORAL for me to do certain
things (committing theft, assault, murder, whatever), I can
nonetheless bestow moral PERMISSION on someone else, giving them
the RIGHT to do such things.

Sometimes it can be difficult deciding how to state the bleeding
obvious, when your target audience has been carefully trained to
MISS the bleeding obvious. To wit, it's possible to demolish the
fundamental assumptions underlying statism using very simple lines
of reasoning. And for the recovering statist, the logic is
undeniable, and the rational conclusion self-evident. But for the
thoroughly indoctrinated (and that included me not many years ago),
sometimes the most simple explanation causes the most drastic
cognitive dissonance.

Here is an example:

The concept of "authority" is a MORAL concept. "Government," by
definition, is the group of people who have the supposed moral
RIGHT to enact and enforce "laws." (Whether there are "limits" on
what those "laws" require doesn't matter for this particular
point.) And a moral RIGHT of the "law-makers" to rule (even if only
in a "limited" way) implies a moral OBLIGATION to obey on the part
of their subjects. That is the essence of the concept of
"authority" and "government."

This Friday, June 18th, Richard Simkanin, after having been held as
a political prisoner by the U.S. tyrants for over SIX YEARS, will
be free (relatively speaking). I cannot even begin to express the
injustice that Mr. Simkanin has had to endure, in so many different
ways. What the god-complex megalomaniacs and their mercenaries--
especially one sadistic fascist swine called "Judge" John McBryde--
did to Mr. Simkanin is despicable. They hate him for his honesty
and courage, and his determination to tell the truth and do the
right thing, and they made sure to do whatever they could to
destroy his business, ruin his finances, mess up his family and
social life, assault his reputation, and otherwise do their best to
wear him down, in mind and body.

But Mr. Simkanin's integrity remains intact. His devotion to truth
and justice still live. The parasites did what they could to take
everything else away from him, but they could not touch his soul.

As odd as it sounds, being RELEASED from prison can be an extremely

This may come as a shock to collectivists, but narrow-minded,
prejudiced, rude, stupid bigots have the same rights as everyone
else.

The recent television discussion between Rand Paul (son of Ron
Paul) and Rachel Maddow (collectivist propagandist) has gotten a
lot of attention, and has prompted a flood of comments from people
who don't know how to think. Personally, I think Rand deserves
some criticism for his comments ... for being too civil and too
"moderate" with the state-violence-worshiping hostess. To the
question of whether a restaurant owner has the right to have a "No
blacks allowed" policy, the principled answer would have been,
unapologetically and unconditionally:

"Yes, a restaurant owner has the absolute right to serve and not
serve whomever he damn well pleases, for any reason or no reason at
all. An owner can say 'No blacks allowed,' or 'No whites allowed,'
or 'Only atheist albino midgets allowed.' It's his damn property,
and no one--not you, not me, and not any collective or any