The Libertists

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

Explained by example. You're sitting in your living room and mom has left to get something from the mail box, you sneak into her room, rifled through her purse and come away with six loose dollar bills. This is an example of an immoral act. It takes on this definition because it was done by an individual that realized the act was wrong and could get them in trouble. The person perpetrating this act was doing it when the mother had left the room, needing to do this thing in secret, away from observation. Now instead. You are sitting in your living room, Mother is at the dining table, you want money, you take your mother's purse, dump in on the floor and take what you want. Although the act itself still appears to be immoral, it is, in fact, Anti-moral by nature. Because the individual has no claim to morality or avenue by which to determine if the act is a valid way to deal with other people. This particular person holds no meaning, no way to say such an act is inappropr