This business of varying rights – based on what’s between your legs (or where you put what’s between your legs or what gets put into what’s between your legs) or the color of your skin or some other characteristic… it’s like exchanging Pesos for dollars – but vicious because it devalues human beings.
Gay rights, women’s rights.
Rights for people “of color” (the translucent ones had better shut up and sit down).
Rights for the “differently abled.”
Rights defined by the “community” – the collective – you’re (supposedly) a member of.
These aren’t rights. They are grievances. A demand – based on group identification – that a need must be serviced. For example, the “transgendered” asserting their “right” to access the bathroom of their choosing. Notice that this supposed “right” imposes an obligation on others to provide a material benefit. This is a clue that the “right” being asserted is in fact a wrong.
A good way to make sense of rights – real ones – is to view them from an economic perspective. As a species of property.
As a function of ownership.
We can start with a proposition that’s pretty self-evident: We each own ourselves exclusively. Our physical bodies are our property. Who else can lay claim to ourselves? (Possibly, God – if such a being exists. But whether he does – or does not – the point is that other people aren’t god. And other people don’t become gods by becoming government officials.)
To allow even fractional ownership of ourselves by another person is to allow a degree of slavery – which is defined by physical ownership of another person; which is defined by having the power to control that person’s body, or the products of that person’s body.
By having the power to direct (or constrain) his acts.
By having the power to make him work for your benefit, contrary to his will. To take from him that which was created by his body or produced by his mind.
When we speak of rights, then, we are really speaking of being able to use our property – that is, ourselves. And to not be forced to use our property for the material benefit of other people.
Thus, I have the right to use my body to do physical work – such as build a structure. Or use my mind to produce the wealth necessary to pay others to do that work for me using their bodies. No one’s rights have been violated – no slavery is involved – because each person is freely using (or bartering the use of) their own property – their bodies, their minds – toward an object each wishes to see realized.
Nothing has been taken from anyone.
Along comes the aggrieved “transgendered.” Rather than use his (her?) body/mind and resources to erect a structure in which there is a bathroom open to all, regardless of sexual equipment or “identity,” he/she demands that a structure be provided by others, who must use their bodies and minds and the resources that flow from these things, to provide it for him/her.
That is slavery.
Someone’s else’s property has been hijacked. Their rights have been abused.
The transgendered person’s feelings may have been hurt when he/she is told that the Men’s room is the Men’s room and the Ladies’ room is the Ladies’ room. But his/her rights have not been violated.
The same goes for the “differently abled” person who cannot easily access a hot dog stand because there is no ramp or lift. The hot dog stand is the property of another person and unless the “differently abled” person acquires (freely) an ownership stake in the hot dog stand, his rights are limited to expressing to the owner that it would be really nice if there were a ramp or a lift. His impairment does not impose an obligation on the owner to accommodate the “differently abled” person’s disability, which means – accept the yoke of slavery, to whatever degree, to provide a material benefit against his will to another person (“differently abled” or not).
We each have a right to speak and to write, to express our views – whatever those views may be. This is another manifestation of property rights. Our minds – each one uniquely ours – produce thought, which finds tangible expression in the spoken and written word, or through the art and so on we each create.
No other person creates these things and so no other person can lay claim to these things. This includes suppressing these things. That is a variant of the “transgendered” person asserting the “right” to force another person to provide him/her with a bathroom and to lay down the terms and conditions of its use. If another person can tell you what you may (or may not) say or write, they asserting control over your mind (and your pen), which is to say, over your property.
Again, slavery.
The antithesis of rights.
Like Occam’s Razor, this can be applied to almost any question, to separate a right from a demand.
Is there a “right” to health care? Only if you take the position that you have the “right” to compel other people to provide it for you. In other words, to enslave them.
Do you have the right to possess a firearm? Of course, provided you’ve used your own resources – the wealth created by your body/mind – to purchase the firearm. You certainly have the right to defend your self. To resist being denied the use of your body – or to ward off a physical threat to your body. To your property.
Once again, to claim otherwise is to argue, openly or not, that you do not have a right to yourself; that others have an ownership stake in your person. In your literal corpus delicti.
Which brings us right back to slavery – the anti-matter opposite of rights.
Being sympathetic toward another person who is less fortunate is laudable; choosing to help others using your own time and resources (that is, your own property) is commendable. Electing to do business with other people or accommodate their needs to the degree you wish – all within you right to do so.
Forcing other people to “help,” or to do business with you – or to accommodate you on their nickel – is a violation of their rights.
It’s simple economics.
And while God (if he exists) may approve, his approval isn’t necessary to make the case. We either each own ourselves – or other people have joint stock interest in ourselves. Have somehow acquired a piece of us, without our ever having agreed to the deal or even being presented with a contract to sign. We are enslaved – to whatever degree – merely because these other people say so.
Maybe it’s time we said something different.
If you have had it with control freak Clovers, Goo-guhl, diversity mongers and like contrarian, liberty-minded media, please consider supporting EPautos.
We depends on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site.
Simple, concise,beautifully written,as usual.Should be intro to a Misses, or Hayek book!!
Owyhee Cowboy
Thank you, Dirk!
If you choose to mutilate your body, don’t expect me to pay extra for you, not one peso, penny, cent, yen or whatever. No. Sorry. Your choice, not mine. If you decide to pay for my dentist, maybe I’d think differently. Until then, I won’t bake your birthday cake. And I certainly won’t let you pervert the lives of minors.
Hi Rust,
Agreed! A man has every right to mutilate his own body; to do anything he likes with it. He just doesn’t have the right to make others subsidize it.
rust, how did you know I truck 15 hrs a day and can still pervert(sic)the live of miners…..er….minors? After all, I’m in agreement with eric so that must make me a pervert too. Geez, gyse like youse sure have it all down pat. Speaking of Pat……..where is old androgynous Pat, your best bud/sis/whatever?
So eric, I hear you been a-mutilatin’ your body. How come you do dat?
Hi Eric, et al,
Excellent article…I sent it to a friend whose response was extremely negative, even without having read it. I need a better class of friend. I suspect that if one cannot engage in defining basic terms like what are rights and what does freedom mean, that no meaningful discussion can occur. Oh well, I have a bit of an extension to your excellent points. People who wish for the most efficacious outcomes, one in which all parties win, should investigate market mechanisms. The use of force to compel social agendas may superficially work, but the cost is high in terms of disaffected parties that have been victimized in the process and that’s the kind of longterm negative effect that’s very difficult to overcome. There are many examples of this but perhaps the most significant in this country revolves around the resolution of slavery and subsequent race relation issues. Now, this is just my thinking on the matter but bear with me.
The U.S. was the only country in the world where resolution of the legal concept of slavery was related to a war that killed a significant percentage of the population. The war was mainly an economic one, though slavery became a justification later, and it did finally result in chattel slavery by individuals being outlawed from a constitutional perspective. Slavery should have never existed in the English colonies and its abolition was a good thing. However, due to the way “Reconstruction” was handled…e.g. in the only way governments operate, via coercion, the well of race relations between whites and blacks was poisoned for generations. So, what alternative was there? Well, the market solution would have been for the government to compensate slave owners….it worked in Brazil. Slavery was destined to disappear as it always has in more technologically advanced cultures because besides being ethically odious, it’s really an inefficient use of human resources. OK, so fast forward to 1964….Johnson’s actions created put significant parts of black urban culture back on the plantation (and some white culture as well). The concept that any group was owed and entitled to housing, food, health care etc. will, to a large degree, make that population dependent on the government. This was at a time when the black middle class was starting to flourish, when black families benefited from two parents and when black businesses were starting to succeed. Don’t take my word for it, read the stats. In any case, Malcolm X was right in one respect, beware of stuff from the white devil government(that’s a paraphrase in case you were wondering but essentially accurate). Fast forward to the present. Much of black urban culture, and a lot of white culture as well, has grown to expect a free place at the trough of government largess. Black urban culture has a 70% single parent household rate. This is a model for cultural failure. The market approach would have been for individuals to encourage black individuals to enter the middle and upper class by economically rewarding hard work, responsibility and so forth. But, hey, what do I know…I’m just a racist, white, heterosexual male born and raised in the South. That said, somewhat tongue in cheek, I’ve never enslaved anybody, never initiated any violence or coercion against anybody and never supported such acts. But……the Patriarchy…..literally Hitler…..I must admit to getting a lot of joy from the exploding heads these days though it’s sort of like cheering while being in the blast radius of a nuclear detonation. T’aint nobody getting out alive….sheesh…this was way too long-winded.
Hi Giuseppe!
Thanks for the kind words! Like you, though, I get depressed by the almost animal/instinctive recoiling (crimethink!) when the orthodoxies are questioned. People literally get mad – and rather than respond with arguments or questions, lash out like a … wounded animal.
The Prussian school model has done its work.
I have always thought there must have been an economic side to the civil war. New England mills or English mills? Southern cotton there might have been Egyptian cotton, perhaps even Russian or Indian cotton at the time. I suspect English mills seriously feared New England mills. Support the south for cotton, get back at the U.S. for the revolution. This is speculation of course.
Max, (and anyone else who might have wondered if what he “learned” about the war was all there was to know)
I recommend “When in the Course of Human Events” by Charles Adams. (Be careful, there is another book by that name, different author.) It gets into a wide range of things that the history books do not cover. It covers the economics of the war and the politics. Among other little details, it sheds light on why Andersonville was the way it was, not exactly what we were told in school.
You can browse a bit of it at Amazon at:
https://www.amazon.com/When-Course-Human-Events-Secession/dp/0847697231
I hate to blow my cover but ARYLIOA is an acronym. A Repent Yankee Living in Occupied Alabama.
Hi ARYLIOA,
I was born in Noo Yoik City… so am a Yankee by birth but a Southerner by choice. We can’t help where we’re born.
Many Southerners, born and bred, are even worse Yankees than the natural born variety. Clintigula, for instance.
“Many Southerners, born and bred, are even worse Yankees than the natural born variety.”
I have found the same thing. I think of two characteristics of Yankees, one good, one bad. The good one is the side that fits the expression “Yankee Ingenuity”. He can still fix a toaster, and will spend 2 hours doing it to save paying $12 for a new one a Walmart. Given time, he can probably fix an iPhone.
But there is the “Meddlin'” side. “If I don’t like it, you shouldn’t, and if you do, I will try to get a law passed against it.” Rothbard claimed that Hillary’s tendency to that was her strict Methodist Sunday School teachers.
But I have found both types on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. There are meddlers in the south. And you can still find prejudice in the south. Where can’t you? It is built into us. It needs to be reined in or it can destroy us. But the most bigoted folks, and proud of it, that I have ever run across were truckers from Wisconsin. (Can eightsouthman speak to that?)
But that war, Lincoln’s War, and the facts surrounding it are often trouble for me. When people claim Obama is the worst president we ever had, I explain that there was at least one who is way off the scale. “The Sainted Abraham” as Admiral Semmes, of the raider Alabama, called him. Semmes would know, of course, since Lincoln wanted him hanged as a traitor after the war. I rarely get off with only a scowl.
Ary, I can speak to it and here’s my summation: Regardless of where you live, bigotry is learned at home. I recall a professor once saying that you couldn’t change people’s minds and there had to be a lot of deaths, meaning our parent’s and grandparent’s generations had to die off for all us to live in the happy rainbow place of brotherly love. Boy, was he full of shit. My parents were basically raised as bigots although bigotry wasn’t spoken in our house, cept for yankees. I don’t think my dad had much in him racially(he empathized with blacks) but women being women, my mother could touch on the subject negatively but as she aged it became less and less.
There were other families I knew you better not say anything that could be taken as bigotry. Of course not all bigotry is race as you were just pointing out. As far as I know, being a yankee is still to this day a dirty word in Tx. Of course speaking like you were from the north would get you labeled a yankee before your actions did. But yankees who moved here often turned out to be independent and fit in once they didn’t try to tell everybody how to do everything.
I’ve worked with coonass’s from La. who never mentioned blacks but cussed yankees and teamsters from NY and NJ who had no use for blacks or Puerto Ricans. I guess it depends on where you’re standing and who you hear.
Similar family style but from what is now the Soviet State of New Jersey. Alabama since 1968. Mainly it was “They are up here taking our jobs!” with “They” meaning blacks coming up from the south. My parents were working/middle class, rural, north of Trenton. Trenton was, at the time, one of the manufacturing capitals of the world.
I still remember segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains in Sears and other stores in Trenton. A hard-core Yankee city. I must have imagined it, huh? Both my much-older-sister, still in SSNJ, and I seem to have avoided carrying it into our generation.
Our schools were desegregated when I was in 2nd, she in 8th, grade. She tells of having to form a circle to play a game during recess one day and having to hold the hand of the black girl next to her. The thought jumped into her head that “She feels just like the other kids!”. My best friend in high school was a black kid who shared all my interests. Hunting, fishing, outdoors. But my daughters have regained it. And passed it on to their kids. In their case, Alabama and Florida, but it is Hispanics in Alabama, Hispanics and PRs in Florida. The one in Alabama “caught it” from her husband. Florida is probably just paranoia from feeling surrounded. Like I said, it is built into us and we have to work to not blind us to the good and bad in just about every class/nationality/race. Even the confusion of ??gender preferences??. If we could discern without prejudgement, we could get along with any of those. I still use judgement, but I really try to wait until I take a good look at the person.
Ary, you couldn’t be more right. We all should realize we want to be with familiar everything including skin color of people.
People can justify anything if they want to bad enough. We were watching the movie “Bernie”, a guy who killed his old lady mealticket. One of the women who tried to make it seem less bad said “He only shot her 4 times, not 5”. To her that single round not fired made all the difference.
Oh, yeah. Forgot. Not to spoil the whole story, but it was largely over Federal revenue.
Revolution: After we rebel, rebellions are illegal. Kill the rich, until I’m finally rich, you should stop killing the rich.
Now that we have deposed George III, anyone want some of this democracy?
Max
Hi Max,
There was. I recommend Thomas DiLorenzo’s excellent books…
Every brick in every building…
https://i.sli.mg/z6sR3G.png
Yes! When the LGBBQ who was born a man, but wants to pretend to be a woman opens a hotdog stand or used car lot, why doesn’t he/she/it have to provide ME with a bathroom where I can be assured of “gender segregation”, which MY beliefs/”sexuality”/culture/custom demand????
It seems that everyone has “rights” these days, except for straight white males. They all have those rights at our expense. Literally- we have to pay for them!
And how is it, that someone can go and have 12 kids, while not producing a thing/not being able to even support themselves, and can be given OUR property [fruit of our labor] by government decree, but if WE fail to hand over half of the fruit of our labor, even after having provided for our own, we are CRIMINALS??!!!
This is really an ABSURDITY! To take the fruit of someone else’s labor to support yourself and those whom you procreated, while you do nothing except occupy space on this earth, is perfectly legit; but to fail to divert money from your own family so that it can be given to these worthless slobs, is a CRIME?!
This just shows how utterly SICK this world is, and why I will NEVER be a part of the mainstream economy.
Hi Nunzio,
A few questions for the “positive rights”, collectivist, SJW crowd:
– Why is it legitimate, even laudable, for gay NM hairdresser, Antonio Darden, to refuse to style Susana Martinez’ hair, but deplorable and worthy of punishment (over $135,000.00 fine and loss of business) for Melissa Klein to refuse to bake a wedding cake for Laurel Bowman-Cryer?
– Why is it courageous and worthy of respect when a man “identifies” as a woman, but despicable and worthy of condemnation when a “white” woman “identifies” as black?
– With respect to bathroom access, why does the “dignity” of a transgendered male supersede the “dignity” of a twelve year old girl?
Positive rights theories create conflicts that cannot be resolved logically or ethically.
Jeremy
Hi Eight,
Ha, I was referring to Rachel Dolezal.
Jeremy, why didn’t you mention Obama’s aunt? ha ha. Well, that’s as good a civic lesson as their is in regards to illegals working the system. They caint even deport the bitch.
And on today’s thread of bad past prez’s, I’m amazed the first word that doesn’t come up for most who don’t really know the history of 1860, isn’t Nixon. If there were ever a snake dressed up to occupy the Offal Office that’s pretty close to as bad as they come.
Hi Eight,
That one slipped by me. I didn’t know of the story until you mentioned it.
Jeremy
Well-said, Jeremy! Perfect illustrations of how their agenda makes absolutely no sense, and contains no logic, but is rather just a crusade against normal people, whom they despise.
Hi Nunzio,
Thanks! I find the actions of Darden and Klein to be commendable. Unfortunately, most of Darden’s supporters do not (I also have doubts about Klein’s supporters).
Kind Regards,
Jeremy
Damn, you talkin bout Obama’s aunt?
One of our rights is the right to make CONTRACTS. We have the right to freely enter an agreement for anything that does not infringe on the rights of another person. A contract has certain requirements in order to be valid. It must be of your free will, and not by force or fraud. It must have a quid pro quo; benefit for both parties. Contracts can be written or verbal; specific or implied. SO, ask yourself; What have I contracted to do?
You have entered into dozens of contracts just today. You have turned on the internet, so you agreed to the terms of the internet provider. You clicked on this article, so you agreed to the terms of the writer, however minor those terms may be. Did you drive somewhere today? You agreed to the rules of the road.
Now, here’s a big question. Do you have a Social Security number. Did you read the terms of the contract that you have with the US government? Are you receiving any kind of benefits from any government? What are the terms of those agreements? What did you agree to do in return for those benefits?
Whether you read the contracts, or not, you agreed to live by the terms of that contract when you SIGNED up. (Even if it was your parents who signed you up for a SS number, you have failed to rescind it. Therefore you have agreed to keep it.) You agreed to do whatever that government agency required you to do. Yes, even if it infringes upon your rights. It’s the same as if you sell your labor for a price.
Even worse than that; you agreed to switch your citizenship from a citizen who is protected under the terms of the Constitution of the United States of America, to being a slave of the United States government. We have all been tricked.
Read this:
noconstitutionforyou.blogspot.com
Seeking_truth-
None of us has a social security number, as it is considered property of its issuer. Most people will be rebuffed if they ask for such a rescission, also for the fact that it usually won’t be your signature upon the application, but your parents most likely, they wanted the “child discount” on their return. To seek this is to wear a nice bright target. On the otherhand, is using something that is not yours, while swearing under the penalties of perjury that it is yours, perjury? Better safe than sorry, Thou shall not swear.
I have read so much of this sort of thing over the years, It is easier to realize there are crappy people out there and conduct ourselves in a manner to minimize such exposures. Worse still are some who promote such things either for personal gain or to narc followers out after the fact. Be cautious.
Max
Being able to truly quit social security is a numbers game.
If millions of people did so. Hired lawyers to do so. They would probably capitulate somewhat.
They would issue you a different nine digit number called a social objectors number and continue to claim their authority as before.
The early quitters would suffer the most. They’re going to make it very expensive and punitive to head off any such movement.
Resignation of SS form
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/SSTrustIndenture.pdf
If this is the SSA-521 form to the effect “revocation of application for benefits”, their rebuttal is that this is to stop retirement checks if situations for the retiree have changed so that an application at a later date may be made, 62 and 65 are the two most common choices with regards to retirement to be made. As most of us are simply responsible for using a number unknowingly this is a mistake not a crime. The best advice is to stop using it, or alternatively use the hell out of it. If people really wanted it to disappear into obscurity they wouldn’t try to erase it, they would write it on a bathroom stall in Juarez.
Max
Tor Libertarian,
How many people issue a 1099 as money given to a contractor namely the IRS? Would they compute the tax owed, deposit it, fill out a 1099 for the institution deposited to, and so on, ad infinitum.
Max
The forms are where they get you.
You have to have a SSN, TIN, or something to files required forms to report earnings.
One workaround is the Amish. They have a separate economy and keep to themselves.
You’d need a large group to openly survive as SSN-less sovereigns.
Yes. There is a religious exemption… but only “recognized” religions. The Amish being among them. You basically have to join a community of some kind.
One critical aspect of RIGHTS is the always attendant RESPONSIBILITY. How many are consciously aware that, for example, or RIGHT to keep and bear arms carries with it as a part of its mature the RESPONSIBILITU to do your part in seeing to “the security of a free state”? Read that much misunderstood Second Article of Ammendment. very clear…. the militia, which is quite simply the whole of the people, are necessary for “the security of a free state (society)” and it is for THIS REASON that THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to arms. The RIGHT to the free exercise of “religion” carries with it the RESPONDIBILITY to live by whatever “religion” you choose… the RIGHT to life itself carries with it the responsibility to protect the LIFE of those round about you. The RIGHT for me to comport myself by whatever sexual mores I believe are correct carries with it my RESPONSIBILITY to allow others to do the same…. which means the two lizzies who DAMANDED the bakery in Oregon participate in their chosen form of sexual morality which necessitated the abandoning of their own (the bakers’ that is) failed to comprehend this, and by engaging the guns of the state government in FORCING their will upon that couple have destroyed their (the bakers’) lives, business, prosperity, peace…. meanwhile the couple did NOTHING to force the two females to abide by their (the bakers’) standards…. they left them free to go find another baker to meet their desires. I have long wondered what would have happened had this pair of females approached a moslem-owned bakery and DEMANDED they comply with their (the two females’) wishes. Methinks we’d have perhaps read of another :”honour killing” or sexual assault.
Every RIGHT carries with it an attendant RESPONSIBILITY
Well-said Tionico!
Similarly: My right to drive at a pace that suits me carries with it the responsibility to cause no harm to others – and the obligation to be accountable for any harms I cause.
You don’t have the right to drive in the current context. You have the privilege of using the roads within a narrow spectrum of parameters.
If we lived in a purely free-market system, and you owned a road, then you would have an absolute right to it, perhaps.
Rights are yours no matter what. Asserting a right to drive means that you expect others to provide you with: a car, fuel, oil, land, paved roads, etc.
Rights are negative. Obligations are positive. Be careful not to mix them up.
Since roads are owned by gov., funded by taxpayers, (public streets and interstates) signs are posted mph max. speed allowed for common sense driving at safe speeds for the roads posted. Open areas like Wyoming and Nev., etc. allow higher speeds on interstates. Areas of Texas I- states have 85mph. Besides high speeds waste gas and are dangerous for drivers even if no one else is near you. I stick to 65mph even if 100mph was allowed.
Hi Laura Ann,
“signs are posted mph max. speed allowed for common sense driving at safe speeds for the roads posted”.
Except, they’re not. Speed limits are often arbitrary, change suddenly, on the same road with the same conditions, and seem to be set more for revenue generation than safety.
“Besides high speeds waste gas and are dangerous for drivers even if no one else is near you”.
If one chooses to value their time more than fuel efficiency, it is nobody else’s business. As for dangerous, in the absence of objective criteria, how do you know? Skill level differs among drivers: what is dangerous to one is safe to another.
“I stick to 65mph even if 100mph was allowed”.
Fine, if that feels safe for you, nobody should force you to drive faster, provided you don’t try to impede others who feel differently.
Jeremy
Try driving 55mph on I-294 where it is the posted speed limit and get back to me. Do it in free moving traffic and very late at night when nobody else is around.
LA. differential in speeds is the most often cause of accidents regardless of speed limits. Driving 6-700 mile per day on interstates enforces that to me personally countless times a day. Every time states get traffic studies done from entities not being paid to come to some particular conclusion, speed differential and specific speeds are deemed to be the major cause of accidents. As a professional driver for 50 years off and on, I’ve been there and done that.
On Texas interstates 65 mph is the speed often associated with lots of near accidents and real accidents, esp when other roads blend into each other. That slow(65mph)driver causes the lanes trying to blend to have people slamming on brakes, trying to change lanes when brakes aren’t enough and running into each other when neither works while that vehicle running slow is wondering why there’s such mayhem all around them. Your type that refuses(as is your right…..under Tx. law)to keep up with the flow of traffic is the worst offender causing accidents. But go ahead, when some big rig runs over you from behind or you cause a big jam in which you’re caught in a huge wreck(I see them too often, fatal ones generally), you can clutch your slow speed bible to your heart and pray for those crazy people doing the speed limit….and maybe throw in a couple for you and yours which might just be the victims. Yes, you have the “right” by state law but it’s best done over there on the access road.
On two lane roads expect traffic to build up to huge amounts behind you and people try to pass when the circumstances aren’t that conducive. But stick to your guns and drive slower than everyone else and watch those people just trying to stay with the flow of traffic have their lives risked by your “right” to drive 65. Never consider the idea you might be fatally WRONG.
The responsibility of a right extends to the responsibility not to infringe the exercise of that right by another person. Any responsibilities beyond that are allegations of a privilege which others claim against to your right.
Responsibility is not a back door for privilege.
Don’t get too hung up on the “constitution” or any of its amendments. It was obviously not intended nor able to protect any of our rights. I don’t give a damn about being part of a militia, nor do I feel an obligation to defend society. But I sure as hell have a right to defend myself and my family any way I see fit. GW was at least right when he said it’s just a goddamned piece of paper. That’s all it is, and a bunch of halfwits in black robes can interpret it any way they like, but that doesn’t change my fundamental god given sovereignty.
That’s exactly it, VZ!
We are each sovereigns over ourselves. Period.
Either the Constitution allows it’s usurpation’s or it is unable to stop it. and yes, Either way, it is a useless document. Think of it this way: We have the right to be free from search and siezure without a warrant. Yet any Cop can walk up to you and demand your papers, and if you don’t comply throw you in jail. either the Constitution allows that violation of the 4th amendment, or it is unable to stop it. And either way, it is a useless document.
Vzguy, the Constitution was not intended to protect us,. It was intended to be the common standard of basic liberty that all who value liberty would zealously defend. When we fail to defend the basic tenets of a free society, no piece of paper is any match for the barrel of a gun or the worthless mercenaries who wield them in exchange for a stipend.
Our fathers started selling us out little by little. They let those tenets of freedom erode, one by one, little by little. The Constitution[and thus, we the people] got weaker and weaker; the government which was supposed to be restrained by that Constitution got stronger and stronger, until here we are today, where so much has been chiseled away, and our people are mere programmed automatons of that government, that there is nothing left to defend.
Best I can tell at the moment the USC was intended to become what we live in today. Maybe worse. That’s why it replaced the articles of confederation under which this sort of government of was not possible.
If the USC was intentionally designed to require infinite energy to retain freedom, it was done so freedom would go away with the full knowledge people would not be up that task.
Brent, there’s really no other way to have freedom, than to defend it with it constant energy. I mean, human nature being what it is, any time you have free people, there will naturally be entities (whether individually or collectively) seeking to rob people of their property (be it land or possessions or labor….)- whether such things take the form of warring tribes or kings or states, it all boils down to the same thing, and no piece of paper can be produced which will repel the attackers.
With the Constitution, what happened is that our forefathers were basically at a point where it was said “We are free, and here are the principles which define freedom. Do not let anyone breach those principles, for once your power is eroded by a large centralized collective group who control everything, you’ll never get that freedom back, except by war.
The collective group was shrewd. They offered our fathers little pieces of carrots on sticks…little by little….take a little piece of carrot; just compromise a little teeny bit of your freedom…it’s just a 1% tax on the top 1% of the wealthiest people… it’s for your own good; it’s for the children; it’ll help the economy!
So here we are, and it’s virtually all gone, and yet most people would still rather chase the few carrot scraps on the stick, than retain any vestige of freedom or privacy or autonomy.
Hi Nunzio,
Macro view here… I think it will take an evolution of sorts to purge coercive collectivism from the human genome. I think Napoleon was correct when he observed (paraphrasing) that liberty is viable only for a small cohort of humanity. The people who can self-regulate; who will voluntarily eschew violence, even when (per Plato) they are “the stronger” and it would be their advantage to use their superior strength to obtain what they want via coercion.
My mentor-at-distance (HST) described such people as Snow Leopards. Rare creatures who are generally solitary but when they interact with others are willing to do so on a value-for-value basis. Who respect talent and energy.
Unfortunately, many – perhaps most – people are more like bees in a hive. It is no accident Nappy used the bee/hive as his symbol.
Very, very true, Eric. Many people use lofty words like “freedom”, but to the majority, all that matters is that they get some benefit at the cost of others, especially if they have grown used to those benefits, smf/or it is socially acceptable/common-place to expect such. I guess that is how we get Nazi Germanys and current-day US’s- when the majority will call some “heroes” for taking up arms against their fellow citizens to extort money or enforcer political decrees against those who have not done violence to anyone’s person or property.
Hi Tionico,
Your conception of rights, while well meaning, is flawed. As you formulate it, the validity of a right is conditioned by the responsibility to do something else. The implications of this understanding of rights effectively negates the entire concept. For example, if my right to keep and bear arms is dependent on my responsibility to “do my part in seeing to ‘the security of a free state'”, then some entity must be empowered to grant me that “right”, and to take that “right” away should I fail to act “responsibly”. Thus, it is not a right at all, merely privilege. I have the right to keep and bear arms because doing so does not violate the rights of anyone else, period.
You write: “the RIGHT to life itself carries with it the responsibility to protect the LIFE of those round about you”. Really? How far around me? Just family, friends and family, those in close proximity, my entire community, maybe the whole world? Must I risk my own life to protect that of others? Once you embrace the concept of positive obligations, “rights” disappear. The discussion of “rights” becomes nothing more than endless bickering about duty and privilege, enforced at the point of a gun.
Let me slightly change what you wrote to illustrate the point: the right to operate a business carries with it the responsibility to treat everyone “equally”, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc… Liberals believe this, you do not. But, on what grounds? By attaching an attendant responsibility to the exercise of a right, you are embracing the “positive rights” theories, advanced by progressive control freaks, that “justify” punishing Christian bakers or forcing business owners to let men use women’s bathrooms.
Kind Regards,
Jeremy
A dangerous conception of rights. The only true rights are ones than are inherent in all people from birth. Everything else is just a privilege extended for a temporary time to the favored few.
Pairing ‘rights’ with responsibilities is the same as setting conditions on behavior; rights are only as valuable as your ability to ACT on them. A real right belongs to you by virtue of being human; not on any obligation imposed by someone else.
In my mind, and in the minds of many others, a couple basic rights can be inferred from our basic humanity-life, movement, assembly-everything else can be extrapolated from them including the most complex living arrangements.
Everyone has the Natural Law Right to be left alone so long as they are not harming others. The only responsibility everyone has is to adhere to this Natural Law Right when dealing with others.
Steven Crowder did exactly that to Muslim owned bakeries. Check out his youtube. No one would serve him!!
Though, because he isn’t an entitled SJW, he just used the video to prove this point and didn’t try to sue or anything like that.
Hi Peeta,
The video was pretty funny but Crowder still doesn’t get it. He makes sure to say “this isn’t like civil rights”. For him the issue is religious freedom, not property rights. But, once you give up the idea of property rights, you have lost the entire battle. There is no principled way of defending the right of the business owner to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, while defending the “right” of the State to compel a business owner to make a wedding cake for an interracial marriage. So, just like the SJW’s he’s criticizing, he accepts the idea that actions based on acceptable beliefs deserve State tolerance, while actions based on “bad” beliefs deserve State punishment.
As much as I find the decision to refuse service to a customer because they’re gay, black, Japanese, fat, ugly, etc… to be stupid and deplorable, I recognize their right to do so. If one objects to such practices, then don’t patronize the business or, if you feel deeply about it, try to publicly shame them; just don’t enlist government guns into your crusade.
BTW, if “we” have the right to boycott a business, then why does a business owner not have the right to boycott “us”?
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy, et al,
I enjoy Stephen Crowder simply because he’s entertaining. But, like almost everybody doing entertainment on Youtube, he often has an agenda…his is Christian conservatism. The Christian conservative agenda may not support property rights as a principled position….some Christians do, some don’t. Unlike you, I don’t find an individual business owner’s decision to discriminate based on any criteria he or she chooses to be deplorable. Freedom is messy that way. I may think that such actions are non-productive, but ultimately the market decides. IMO, this tendency to leap to judgement based on one’s own biases does nobody any good. As I and many others have said…if you really want to reduce discrimination in the most efficacious and least divisive way, let the market work. It really, really is much preferable to the bullying that most agendas seem to prefer. As always, OALA, EHOATAS and YMMV.
Il Cugino, Giuseppe
Hi Giuseppe,
“As I and many others have said…if you really want to reduce discrimination in the most efficacious and least divisive way, let the market work”.
I agree with this completely. The market creates, for the most part, a morally neutral place where different people can interact. Many find that ingrained prejudices become hard to maintain when dealing with people “face to face”.
As to whether I find discrimination to be deplorable, I do not. However, I maintain that it is proper for me to criticize actions that I consider foolish, destructive, illogical, etc… Such is itself an act of discrimination. I do not, in general, condone shaming campaigns, calls for firing, etc… I merely recognize that such actions, absent the force of law, are legitimate. I actually find the actions of Aaron and Melissa Klein to be commendable; their actions, unlike those who revel in their punishment, were not motivated by hate.
Still, there is an unfortunate tendency among some libertarians, and the broader public, to insist that, if one believes in property rights, one has somehow forfeited the right to criticize. Read some of the comments to “The Consequences of Being Politically Incorrect”, here at EP autos for an illustration. Such reasoning is toxic.
While I deplore the bullying campaigns that hurt good people like Matt Taylor and Tim Hunt, I wish “we” were more willing to shame the truly deplorable members of society. For instance, I wish that every debate about the drug war began with the statement: “the drug war is immoral and those who support it should be ashamed”.
Anyway, my thoughts are not entirely clear on this issue, as I hate bullies. Perhaps it is acceptable to bully bullies?
Jeremy
I wonder what the correct term is when you’re only concerned about your rights and freedoms but don’t care for the rights and freedom of others? Give women the freedom of men yet act surprised when they want the chance to participate in traditional manly jobs? Give slaves their freedom and act surprised when they don’t want to laugh at your derogatory jokes or even dare to speak of reparations (which strangely enough is what free men would do if they were imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit. Legalize what was accepted to be mental disorders/crimes and act surprised as the LGBT was to accepted into mainstream society.
I guess life was much easier when freedom was for the White, Christian men to have full rights and everyone else had limited subset of rights.
your first sentence was OK. Then you go off into la la land, talking about women needing to do anything men can do, but often can’t. Yuo fail to compare like to like, thus yuo shoot yourself in the foot. Then you blather on about slaves not wanting to laugh at someone else’ jokes…. there went the other foot. (look into the history or “reconstruction”, the military occupation of the South after the War of Northern Aggression. Whaddya think’s gonna happen when a few millions of people were forcibly evicted from the only shelter, resources, places, tasks, they ever know and forced to… what, wander, fend for themselves, having no money, no tools, no job skills, no emplyment, not even any welfare checks or EBT card….. into a region that had been deilberately and systematically destroyed by that same occupying army.. tyhink Sherman’s little sashay from Atlanta to Savannah. And don’t gimme that nonsense about lagbtquzxy wanting to be “accepted” into “mainstream society”. Bunk. Their stated goal since 1968 has been to transform “mainstream society” to hold to THEIR values and mores/lack of them, and so we have about 1.5% of the population FORCING their ways, habits, values, etc, on the 98.5% who fiund them abhorrent, with good reason to do so. And a good part of their forcing is to get the 98.5% to adopt their (the 1.5%) moral standards that conflict directly with the millennia old behavioural standards upon which the “mainstream society” has been based for that long, and in the process deny the RIGHTS of those 98.5% to live as their strongly and long held convictions dictate.
Take yer whinge somewhere else.
Clover,
The article explicitly speaks of everyone’s equal rights; that the idea of special or different rights based on such things as genitalia or skin color is incoherent intellectually and morally indefensible. You miss the point entirely.
Who argued that women should be denied “manly” jobs? The article merely argued that women have no right to force employers to hire them for “manly” (or any other) job. As an employer – as an owner – I have every right to deny anyone a job – for any reason. Because I am the owner, Clover.
Did I write that anyone has an obligation to laugh at a crude or unfunny joke?
Reparations: You think the great-great-grandson of a slave is entitled to forcibly take (via the state) money out of the pockets of the sons of random white people, whose great-great-grandparents may have owned slaves? You believe the sins of the father – of the great-great=grandfather – are not only binding on the great-great-grandson, but also on people who aren’t even related to either party and whose ancestors did no “sinning” against anyone!
Your entire argument, Clover, is that former wrongs justify current ones.
How about we stop doing wrong?
This last go-round in the patch when wages weren’t actually that high but damned well higher than most everywhere else, there were almost no women and the ones they hired were supposed to be (mostly)engineers like the men that had to get out in that bad cold and heat and supervise and hold up their end.. Meanwhile the woman or two who had these jobs didn’t venture outside for any length of time. Very infrequently you saw a woman out there in the elements working, maybe not to the extent of the men but as well as they could and that’s all you can ask of anyone. I respect those women for busing butt like everyone else. So, where were all those women screaming equal pay? Sure seems to be lots of them……screaming…..but few applying for jobs of equal pay. We can’t all make a living sitting inside, chatting and occasionally making some copies. I’m not speaking of all the women who perform jobs inside that are difficult and demanding, requiring skill, knowledge and fortitude to get those jobs done. And that’s the very reason those women are inside performing those difficult jobs, because they had rather be doing something they’re able and willing to do than something they just merely want to collect a check for. Come on gals who are underpaid(I hear this very little in my part of the country……everybody is underpaid), apply for that rig hand job or pipeline work or any sort of construction. NO? I don’t blame you but don’t blame me for doing such and suffering what the job calls for and make more than working at the Dollar store(and that’s no cush job in itself).
We have the crowd that wants all the benefits and none of the hard work and this doesn’t apply only to construction or any other job. Let’s don’t speak of those people, both men and women, who shoveled shit and ate it too for many years to work up to that “manager” job or “asst. manager”.
In other words, the complaints of the Christian White man that “things didn’t used to this way” and “life was much simpler back in the 1950 (1900, 1850, 1800, etc.) and “what with all this political correctness garbage?” was because other groups were held down in the “good ol’ days.” Blacks were beaten and killed legally up until the 1960’s. Even then Black were still killed anyway when they tried to advocate for their rights. Hence for the longest time the 1A didn’t work for them in the slightest. If you didn’t know why Blacks weren’t as vocal about their rights in the 1950’s it’s because it could be a death sentence.
By the same token being a member of the LGBT was a criminal offense or a mental disorder hence they too knew to keep their mouths and not raise suspicions should they wanted to stay free.
Then thanks to WW2 women found out they can do much of the work that was deemed “too manly.” Suddenly they don’t see they should be stuck as a stay-at-home mother and nothing else.
Hence why do White Christian men act surprise when all these different people are now clamoring to be part of mainstream society? Why should they have to be quiet so White Christian men can pretend that the last 60 years of change didn’t happen? Why shouldn’t they fight back when Conservatives want to take society back the 1950’s and deny all these people their rights?
Gil,
Perhaps you could address points actually made in the article and in subsequent comments. Seriously, what the hell are you babbling about?
Jeremy
EP rails on about others’ right and I said why. To a certain level rights are zero-sum – as more and more groups wants rights they deprive it from others. A tasteless sexist joke could get you fired? Back in the 1950’s giving a secretary a playful slap of the backside was an office perk. Various groups don’t have to put with the crud that White men dished out 50+ years ago anymore? When anti-PC types romance the days of Don Draper they’re really anti-rights.
Clover,
Why is it that you – people like you – never respond to an interrogatory with a direct, factual reply? Could it be because you have no facts with which to reply?
I critique the idea of reparations, pointing out the fact that it is literally punishing the great-great-grandson for the sins of the great-great-great grandfather… worse than that, actually, because it presumes the great-great-grandfather actually committed the sin in question when he probably didn’t (most people did not own slaves). And your rejoinder?
“To a certain level rights are zero-sum – as more and more groups wants rights they deprive it from others.”
Unintelligible/vague gibberish.
Your modus operandi is to spew non sequiturs; to emote.
Probably, you’re not even conscious of this. It’s like attempting to explain the principle of the four stroke engine to a rooster.
Even a deeper question is: How does one determine how much is owed to, and how much is owed by, the descendants of black slave owners? Myth not withstanding, there were some.
Like Trump’s “Pocahontas”. How much is she due, how much does she owe?
Both my parents’ parents were new immigrants (England, Poland) after Lincoln’s War. How much do I owe?
But to even ponder such absurdities gives most folks a headache, so they just go with the current narrative from the Gray Lady and WaPo.
I suppose I could have ancestors on my father’s side who owned slaves…..but I’d hate to have to put fact or lie to it. It would cost more than anything I could pay. In the immortal words of Roger Miller “I lack fourteen dollars having twenty seven cents”….Take a number, get in line or just send me a bill I’ll file with all the rest I can’t pay…..I gotta go find an Excedrin……
Gil,
“EP rails on about others’ right and I said why”.
So, you believe that you possess the magic ability to divine what “we really mean”, despite the fact that nothing in the article or subsequent comments supports your assertion, such hubris.
“To a certain level rights are zero-sum – as more and more groups wants rights they deprive it from others”.
This understanding of “rights”, while lamentably common, is logically fallacious and ethically abhorrent. You are discussing privilege, we are discussing rights. You believe rights are given and can be taken away. Again, you confuse rights with privilege. You claim that “we” lament “our” loss of rights and and resent that others have gained rights. This is entirely a product of your febrile imagination, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot support it. You claim that “we” are not concerned with the rights of others. A truly ridiculous assertion given the frequency with which the “doesn’t violate the rights of others proviso” appears in the comments.
“Back in the 1950’s giving a secretary a playful slap of the backside was an office perk”.
Please provide a section of the article or comments lamenting the loss of this “perk”. BTW, giving an unwanted slap is not a “right”, it is an assault.
“When anti-PC types romance the days of Don Draper they’re really anti-rights”.
Just more of your “magical” insight, unsupported by anything actually written.
Jeremy
Jeremy, damndest thing I have ever seen is clover’s ability to divine thoughts never expressed. It truly is magical. Kreskin pales in comparison. Gil probably thinks everyone can do this. If he only knew, he could sell tickets.
Hi Eight,
Yep, it’s really hard to deceive someone with facts and logic when they know what I “really” mean. Too bad Gil is onto us.
Everyone loves to talk about how women are discriminated against in the workplace, politics, etc. Well, they make up more than 1/2 the population, so what’s stopping them from just taking over? Especially politics, where one vote is the rule? If gender is so important, why did women vote for Trump over Clinton and Jill Stein?
I was a hiring manager for an EEO compliant company. We were required to seek out women-only employment agencies and basically any woman who applied for a job automatically got an interview. In my time only one woman applied for a “traditional man” position, and she was very qualified so I hired her. She lasted about 2 months, most of which was the training program. Don’t know why she quit, but my guess is she got a “better” job elsewhere.
Hi Gil,
The libertarian conception of rights is defined by and constrained by “concern for the rights of others”. Note the proviso in the following statement, “people are free to do as they wish, provided that doing so does not violate the rights of others”. Rights are not “given”, they are recognized. Women have always had the same rights as men. However, the coercive institutions you seem to favor refused to recognize those rights. Same goes for all of the other hyphenated rights categories you reference. Advocating for the abolition of laws that violate the rights of others is noble. Advocating for laws that grant “freedom” to some, at the expense of the rights of others, is not.
Freedom, defined by an absence of constraint, does not exist in this world. So, what is meant by freedom? To a libertarian it means that all of us are free to do as we wish provided that doing so does not violate the rights of others. To a collectivist it means that some of us are entitled to do as they wish, even if doing so violates the rights of others. The collectivist conception is incoherent, constrained only by arbitrary whim, transitory, applied differently to different groups at different times; guaranteed to cause conflict, enforced at the point of a gun. The collectivist seeks to impose his values, by force, on others, the libertarian seeks no such thing.
“Thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!” – Friedrich Nietzsche
Jeremy
Gil, freedom isn’t something that can be given! It is the simple right to exist and be left alone. Whatever is more than that (Like being able to do what someone else does, or being “equal” to them) is either by one’s own ability; by negotiation with the others with whom you are dealing (i.e. via contract or charity, or agreement…) or by force.
Only the first two methods retain freedom for all parties involved.
If one is “equal” to another, they don’t need a law or a punitive system to attain that equality. Any true right that one has, can not come at the expense of others who possess that same right.
Let’s take for example, those who say that we have a “right” to healthcare”. How can one have a right to something which requires the labor and property (supplies, machinery, drugs, facilities…) of others, or for others to pay for such? Such can not be a right, because if it is, it in fact obliterates our most basic rights of privacy and private property (to be left alone) in that ultimately, it would require slavery (by forcing others to provide labor and services, or to pay for such), and if you had to require slavery for some or everyone, to guarantee a “right” obviously such a right can not exist because it could only exist at the expense of other more basic rights.
I will venture a guess to acquiesce you, selfishness? You are doing so right now. As you keep doing it, greed.
Wanna trade ideas, we’re Capitalist. Do communists trade. Capitalist. I will never stamp out an example of perfect communism, it would be so rare, thus valuable. capitalist.
Max
I would make a small but significant correction – we are trustees or guardians of ourselves, we don’t own ourselves (use God if you want – Bodies, talents on loan from God). A lease car can be driven anywhere, but you don’t own it, need to take care of it, and insure it, etc. It appears you own it but you are just allowed to drive it prudently.
Whatever you are using to post or read this has a “slave” contract. Most require you to give up the right to a jury trial by using it, like all iPhone and Mac and Android and Windows software. Did you click “I Agree” to give up your “fractional ownership”? I’d say such is invalid because you don’t own you – where’s the title, how did you acquire yourself? But if you say you “owned” yourself, by getting a driver’s license, or even acrtivating your phone, you agreed to be a slave of some other.
sort of.. but that to which you refer as “slavery” is more alike to “indentured servitude
it being so that the scope in breadth and time are limited. Yes, my driving license DOES to an extent enslave me, but ONLY when I am driving a motor vehicle on public rights of way. It means nothing, indeed I don’t even need to carry it with me when I walk, sail my boat, ride my bicycle, etc. And when i ISE that “mobil device” I am indeed bound by the TOS. But when it is sitting idle some distance from me, it has no sway over me.
“Who else can lay claim to ourselves? (Possibly, God – if such a being exists. But whether he does – or does not – the point is that other people aren’t god. And other people don’t become gods by becoming government officials.)”
Very well said Eric. And you know I believe in God and His ownership of everything, including myself.
The problem comes with ‘humanism,’ the official religion of our supposedly neutral gunvermin. In that view, man IS god. The argument comes down to whether it is individual man or ‘collective man.’
Collective man always wins, of course. More power in groups than in individuals, and the nature of individualism doesn’t lend itself to forming vast coalitions to sink the others. The more mindless and robotic the easier for the ones in power to form the many groups they use against us, and each other.
Perhaps a point in the time will exist for an individual, and it probably does already for the talented, to make his way in the world and attain freedom in the sense of economic and social freedom using technology. Political freedom is a myth; the nature of politics is conducive to the use of power, nothing more. Freedom can never be based on politics.
Yeah – and freewill is the issue. That is a right from God – but the enemy (given access for now) only works to enslave.
Although it isn’t the first time the concept of Rights was attacked but, FDR certainly delivered a crushing blow to the whole idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
This may be the most impactful speech to that end in our times; that infects us to this day.
I would add that people, particularly those in GovCo, talk about our “driving privilege”. I would posit that if we have a Right to Peaceably Assemble we have a concurrent right to be on the roads and highways to achieve that assembly. A North Carolina HP Commandant (that was his title) said it was a privilege to be on the roads of NC. Note, it went beyond driving but, to merely be “on the roads”. That was 20+ years ago and things have not improved.
Good Morning Eric,
It is common for people to speak of conflicting rights, or of the need to balance rights fairly. Whether intentional or not, this is an example of the perversion of language in order to prevent critical thought (as you described in a previous essay). “Rights”, by definition, cannot conflict. If two rights claims appear to conflict, then one or both of the claims is invalid. The widespread acceptance of the idea that rights can conflict means that the concept has disappeared from the minds of men and been replaced by an assertion of privilege. This is especially problematic because privilege, by definition, is granted by some entity, other than oneself, claiming to possess legitimate authority. Thus, the perversion of the meaning of “rights” not only guarantees a continuing escalation of social conflict, but empowers the “rulers”, who falsely claim the “right” to forcibly arbitrate the mess.
To assert a right is to make a claim about the nature of reality, conditioned only by it being in a state of logical non-conflict with the “rights” of others. In a very real sense, the validity of a rights claim can only be determined by testing it against this standard. For example, the claim, “I own myself”, meets this standard, but the claim, “I have a right to healthcare”, does not.
“Natural rights” are much denigrated by modern “thinkers”, politicians and society at large. Perhaps these people do not understand that if “natural rights” (as defined above) do not exist, then “rights” do not exist at all, merely privilege and all that requires: coercive control, perpetual social conflict, submission to illegitimate authority and a ruling elite. Then again, maybe they understand this perfectly well.
Jeremy
Correct Jeremy. So many think they have a ‘right’ to have their ‘needs’ met. Well, you don’t ‘need’ do anything but die. You don’t even ‘need’ to pay taxes, although you will die sooner if you don’t.
I have come across various types of eager property violators across the internet. A pernicious sort occasionally thinks they may have found an in, by arguing that as a libertarian or anarchist I should respect their choice of violating a norm they never agreed to, fair enough, right? This is not unlike many libertarian ideas concerning third parties injecting themselves into private affairs. Essentially they are arguing against property at the same time as they are arguing for it. A characteristic of property is the ability to exclude others from its use, they are often arguing for the right to exclude you or I from using our said property while utilizing it for whatever use or cause they wish. They are simply hypocrites.
Right on, Max!
Good to have you with us, by the way… welcome to EPautos!
We are so many decades of bad deeds and patches that few people can get it all straight. It takes awhile before someone can start questioning things and learning enough to take out all the knots and get back to root causes. Many things that people were conditioned to see as good and solutions to the bad have to be seen in the light of what they really are, patches and cons to keep an unfair and bad system functioning and growing. To starve off the necessary revolution in thought by the masses for a few years more.
These people are also known as Communists or Socialists.
There is an entity based in Europe that hates the Declaration of Independence and seeks to have it revoked by stealth.
And they carry australia along: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOi1l_Dkl-A