The Libertists

I must preface this with a disclaimer: I am a voluntaryist. The only moral, ethical, true, way for two individuals to deal with each other is by voluntary means. Any act by one to force the other to comply is already an immoral act. Thus, my opinion of violence is that it is always wrong, apart from defending oneself against violence. It is funny that so much of the old ideas of government have managed to stay inside the current views on government. Well, it's funny only in that so few people see that there is really zero distinction between forms of governments. That in fact, all government is a form of controlling the means of other people's production. That is all, government is by its nature anti-voluntary. Government must act by force.  In the old days, this was a singular king or a ruler, perhaps a 'wise' counsel of men, forcing what they thought was divine authority on their subjects. They controlled the means of other men's production. In those

Why do people get together and run a marathon? It's not like they can't just run whenever they want. Have none of these people seen Forest Gump? When asked by the socialist media why he was running - for what PURPOSE it served - he said, simply, "I just felt like running." And he did. He ran because it motivated him specifically, singularly. He ran because he wanted to run.  Ask any marathon runner why they run, and they'll tell you stories of how they want to prove they can do it. To prove that they are capable of doing something amazing. And let's face it, 26.2 miles when not being chased by zombies is a pretty amazing feat, but it comes back to the original question: If you wanted to prove you can run 26.2 miles, why didn't you just prove you can do it? WHY do you go to a specific location, with a million other people and run a sponsored event? What purpose does it serve? The only answer is that they are communists. I know, I know

** Listening to people argue over this or that ideology is like arguing with the executioner. You're already dead and asking the wrong guy the wrong questions. ** Notice how people use the concept of belief as a measure of reality.  For example, "What? You don't believe seatbelt laws make us safer?"  Belief has nothing to do with evidence. Besides, the notion of 'safer' is already a concept that such people has lost touch with and cannot even understand what 'safer' actually means.  When faced with an epistemology where belief is more valid than a discourse of evidence on the objective universe, one should walk away as quickly as possible. Such a person has no ears to hear only a megaphone to blast the cacophony of their limited metaphysics. ** The vote means that you wish to control the behavior of your neighbor. That you cannot trust his actions of his own accord. You do not trust him. This gives your neighbor the same right to find disgust in yo

Cars should be banned With the recent reckless act of a driver running down multiple people in New York City, cars should be banned from personal use. They should be taken out of the hands of the incompetent and possible terrorist. If we can save just one life, then we have to do something. Only very special people should be allowed to drive, like politicians and movie stars. Now that your blood pressure is through the roof. I'm not serious. Think about how ready you were to post a comment and tell me to f*ck off. That you would never give up your car. That you would never let the State decide what and how you can get around. I find it hilarious that we live a world where a thing that most people call a privilege is so vigilantly protected, but a thing called a right is constantly battled.