The Libertists

Recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a professed Democratic Socialist, appeared on Colbert. She made a couple of statements that are pure anti-human, and the crowd, unaware of the consequences of her comments, applauded. Colbert, seemingly enamored (not by her good looks mind you but by his past opinions on the virtues of communism), said nothing of any consequence. None of this, of course, should surprise anyone that is paying attention.  She stated that she believes education and health are basic human rights. So, since, they are basic human rights, they must be freely accessible to anyone that wants them.  Colbert didn’t even ask her, “Well, Alexandria, how exactly are you going to pay for this?” This is because democracies as a whole believe that the outcome of the vote is a moral truth and whatever costs created by the so-called elected officials, is a required condition of participation. If the state requires the users to pay for everything, then the users (slaves) will pa

Currently, there is much debate over whether or not some entertainers should be forced to stand for some kind of political ceremony. Not standing is said to be some kind of disrespect to the idealism of the current view on the construction of the idea. It - those that want everyone to stand - say it is against the traditions of the people. The great irony is that I've already directly discussed this exact position in Saint Horz, the Stone Saint. The story there is called "Yoked" where at length Horz tries to remind an angry crowd of people that they have misunderstood the nature of the thing they are worried over. It doesn't work out for Horz, they try and Stone him, which fails, like all such things would. But the point is clear to the Saint, people are unreachable. They have, by bad epistemology, come to accept a method of understanding things without actually having to learn why they understand them. Such people will never be reachable. It isn't even pos

Recently a company in California told its employee’s that it would be doing away with accrual on vacation time. They told their employees that starting at a particular point there would no longer be any set in stone thing called vacation time.  Once an upon a time an employee was a person. A real thing. Self-defined. Self-owned. Self-responsible. He was his own property and his time was his to sell as he wished. In this golden age of humanity, a person could approach a business and ask to be employed by the business. The business would ask for the individual to sell a set amount of their time to the company. During the negotiation process, the individual would agree to the terms if they suit the individual's needs. For the price of that time, both the employee and his new employer agreed by contract to offer some of the employee’s time back to him in the form of vacation.  This vacation time was a real thing, like time really is, like the person and the business really are

I am for Liberty. Liberty is the only goal. Thus when asked if I am for or against the police I find that no one can even understand my answer. They believe that it is simply a yes or a no. One side or another. But I must always ask them back, "Which is of more value your life or the State?" Most people will then assume that when I say State, I somehow magically manifest that word into meaning "a group of people", which I don't, but they do and they tend to say: "That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. " Hogwash. For it is still the actions and subsequent motion of individual persons who create an activity. It is individuals that make the many possible - The individual man starves and dies from this affliction.  It is the individual person that says of themselves that their life is of lesser value, the group does not define this for the individual. The individual creates and accepts his own miniaturization

I have a lot to say about Jury Duty, but I need to really save it for a lengthier paper. Instead, I'm going to talk briefly about specific events that occurred at yesterday's government-funded meetup.com called jury duty. "Thankful...you showed up." It was on the televisors screens. It came out of the clerk's mouths. It was part of the orientation. it was on the paperwork. It was the first thing out of the Judge's mouth, the first and last thing out of the lawyer's mouths. Every single person in the government agency was 'thankful' for us being there. They kept reminding us that we made it possible for people to have fair trials. We made it possible to follow the Constitution. We were the spirit of the whole system! Frankly, none of that can be true. Because every single one of us was there under duress, for fear of the State taking from us our means of production for not being there. Imagine this conversation: Me: You

It is not a day that goes by where I do not hear the same counter argument to individualism that permeates the classical Hegelian cognizant dissonance. This notion: for the children.  In my piece about why Colorado is absurd for wanting to pass a law that would require retail sellers of cellular phones to find out if the item was to be used by people under a certain age, I've heard "But we have to do this for the children!"  The argument is emotionalist claptrap.  It violates its own ethics  To say "for the children" one is suggesting that there is an entity, definable as a single thing, called a child. And that this entity, called the child, has an identifiable construction called self, else we couldn't isolate it as a definable individual person called Child. We call this self "conscience" - the individuals self access to its identity of things it considers good and bad - This is just part of the overall individual's conscio