The Libertists

Recently a very high profile news story has appeared about a woman who, from the story, has terminal cancer.  With this knowledge, she has decided that she wants to end her life (possibly by the time I finish this she might have already taken the final moment). Of course, this brought up all the usual questions about morality and what we're teaching the children about the nature of the universe and thus life.  But not one person, through the clatter has asked the most basic question there is: Who owns that body? There are three possible solutions: 1. God owns it 2. The State owns it 3. The Individual Owns it. Only one of them makes any real sense. Let us look at the details of all three: Does God Own The Body? All the religions of the world that currently hold the major sway in philosophy would basically echo the Augustinian view.  Saint Augustine (I only use the word Saint here for clarity not as a consideration of truth.  He was actually Augustine of Hippo) was on

I sent in my absentee ballot last week and they included a nice little sticker to indicate that I voted. The comedy: I didn't vote for a single person on the ballot. Sure, I applied a no to any field where the state allowed me to vote for new laws and didn't simply write these new rules themselves.  But as for the so-called leaders, I disagree with all of them.  I disagree at the core level of their beliefs: their philosophies of nature, their views of intellect, their concepts of ethics.  California doesn't allow for write-in candidates, or at least, there was no field for me to write anything in, so I was stuck in a quandary.  Do I even send in the ballot?  After all, my choice was to say all the current political views being forced on me are absent decency and logic.  They suffer from such things as other world super naturalism, egalitarianism, socialism, nominalistic views, and a host of other outright insane concepts based on the primacy of consciousness.  All prim

To those that oppose freedom: Senate Bill 53 - pass this and I'll simply drive to Arizona to buy ammo.  And what kind of exception are you going to give shooting ranges?  Probably none, if that's the case, I'll drive to Arizona to shoot as well.  end result: California loses revenue and thus tax money.  genius! Assembly Bill 1964 - California's absurd choices about what it considers a safe gun are a ridiculous anomaly in human intellect.  Such laws by their nature imply that people whom make things that the Holy State disagrees with are some how less human if not down right evil.  Absurd.   If you pass such laws, I'll buy a drill press and make my own parts. Senate Bill 199 -- BB guns? seriously, you guys have lost the plot. Senate Bill 808 - Pass it, see if I show to register or participate in it.  How would you know?  Frankly, this is a Molon Labe moment if ever there were.  You obviously have zero general idea of the Nature of Ownership and the right of a

Watch the video at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqWI8HCNf8 Police Chief Ken James of Emeryville California had some interesting words for we fellow individuals. He said, "The idea that a gun is a defensive weapon is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power.  Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon, to defend themselves or their other officers.  They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner." IS A GUN DEFENSIVE or OFFENSIVE? The quality and disposition of inanimate objects is directly related to the condition to which it becomes animated.  That is to say, no object of itself can have an emotional state.  One can not apply an emotional adjective.  Imagine if we pulled some other random adjective's out of a hat and applied them to a firearm: "The idea that a gun is a Happy weapon is a myth." "The idea that a gun is a Troubl

Let us assume some objects of argument, to avoid conflict in the text. These are assumptions based on the arguments against liberty we hear from the Statists: Government believes that it is sworn to first and foremost protect society at large. Government assumes that public safety supersedes all other forms of Liberty (their logic is that without public safety there is no society and thus no 'real' Liberty... see other papers about Liberty to understand why the government’s argument is false) Government gives itself the authority to determine the nature and validation of what exactly is public safety and thus leaves it to those it punishes (we individuals) to prove the law wrong (at exorbitant costs mind you) Society tends to over-inflate their fears of their fellow man and thus, easily demonize each other. -- I will digress here a moment and explain: Imagine running into a person and asking them, "Do you feel that anyone should be allowed to have hands or f

“Magazines greater than 10 rounds are for terrorists and gangsters” There are many issues that fall outside logic here. Law Enforcement  The most obvious distinction is: What about those put in charge of enforcing legislative actions?* Do they also qualify as “Terrorists and gangsters” or do those whom that have been called law enforcement, military, federal agents, etc, get a special convenience? I suppose by the above statement the logic would be, “well, they need more rounds to fight against the terrorists that are breaking the law!” Thus:  Creating Class System  I shall explain this by analogy. If we take the same distinction of how things are held and the use of a magazine to simplify holding ammunition, then let us assume that instead of bullets we are talking about dollars and instead of magazines we are talking about the size of the bill and that terrorists and gangsters are replaced with some other ‘corporate’ villain. So to restate the above: “Dollar bills

There is a debate afoot that indicates Healthcare as a right and does so by equating it to food. The argument is that food is a right as is health(care). Some of the arguments limit the word to simply Health and some extend it to healthcare. It seems to me that the logical disconnect is occurring at the level of the definition of the words. Let us start with the definition of food. Food is a Right? What is food exactly? I will explain food below, but let’s see what food as a right could mean: The statement food is a right, could be saying one of two things: 1. The living thing involved is going to use its own energy to capture, purchase, create, an object that can be consumed by the body for nourishment. This object, will require the individual living thing to use time, energy and other resources in its possession to do this. In other words, it will use its own Life (time energy), and Liberty (the ability to make decisions for the self) to add objects to its Estate. Combin