The Choice

229
9758
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Libertarians face a tough choice this fall – chiefly because Libertarians have no desire to choose a “leader” for themselves or anyone else. The ideal choice would be to not have to choose at all. For us each to make choices for ourselves only – and leave everyone else alone.Hillary lead

Unfortunately, we’ll be forced to make a different choice. Note the italics.

We’ll be forced to choose.

Voting in a coercive/collectivist society – which is the type of society we live in – is a defensive act. Like putting up your hands when someone throws a punch at you. Sometimes, you have to do it. When you haven’t got any other choice.

Voting for Trump may fall into this category.

Obviously, he is not a Libertarian. But I think a case can be made that it’s important to vote for him. It may be the most important vote any of us will ever cast. For one reason only.

Trump opposes The Wars.

It is why he is hated by the establishments of both parties (which are functionally the same party). And that is a compelling reason to support the guy.

Libertarians, after all, oppose hurting people. They specifically oppose murdering them. Hillary is a known mass murderer. A supporter of – a chearleader for – the ruination of Iraq and the deaths of (at minimum) tens of thousands of people who never lifted a finger against “our freedoms” but were in the way of Bushian-Clintonian “regime change” games of global hegemony.

Trump wants to run the United States but I do not think he wants to rule the world. Hillary is champing at the bit to do so. Is literally bloodthirsty. See, for example, this video:

I have heard Trump make rude comments about women and Latinos. He has offended people. He has used eminent domain to have people forcibly removed from their property to make way for his various developments.

As as I know, he has never had anyone killed.

How many people have died because of Hillary?

How many more will die if she is elected?

If she is elected, it is a certainty many will die. If Trump is elected, it’s at least possible these deaths will be avoided.

This is a very compelling reason to “hold our noses” – and vote for Trump.Hillary 3

And for our own selfish reasons, too.

Less war means more freedom for us. Or at least, a slowing down of the eviscerations of our remaining freedoms.

Consider how freedom has been diminished ever since the federal Leviathan began its “fight for our freedoms” all around the globe. Have things become more – or less – free here in the Homeland as it’s styled nowadays?

That we now refer to America in exactly the same way that Germans once referred to their country (Der Heimat) when aggressive and perpetual war was official policy should answer that question for you. But if not, go to any airport. Or visit your local “law enforcement” department’s parking lot and have a look at the equipment there. Did your local PD possess armored battle wagons before the “fight for our freedoms” began? Did the PD themselves wear blue… or black, as today?

Hillary and her gang of thugs egged on – and probably organized – the death by sodomy of Muamar Gaddafi of Libya. They were gleeful about the way he was murdered. Not merely that he was murdered.

Think about that.ghaddafi

What sort of person revels in that?

Hillary.

And if she is excited about that being done to anyone, she is probably just fine with it being done to you.

Trump, meanwhile, is a guy who likes to fuck around. He likes glitz. He is a blowhard. But he is not a murderer. Much less a mass murderer.

He is interested in making money; probably has made much of it via crony capitalist “deals” of one kind or another. He may be a flim-flam man, to some extent.

But he is not a killer.

Ordering people’s deaths would likely give him pause. For Hillary, it is as nothing. The deaths of others are statistics (as Stalin once put it). Remember, this is not assertion or opinion or conjecture but known fact. The woman has spent decades as a producer of DC’s snuff films and she loves the work.

We have an opportunity to possibly save thousands – perhaps millions – of people’s lives. And by doing so, we may very well save our own.

That makes me not just willing to “hold my nose” and vote for Trump.

But eager to do so.

EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.

Will you help us? 

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

PS: EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site. Please be sure to tell us you want one – and also, provide a mailing address, so we can get the thing to you!EP magnet

   

Share Button

229 COMMENTS

  1. Most of the time I don’t give a rodent’s rectum for Ann Coulter’s opinion. But most (not all) of what she’s writing here about the Donald’s veep choice is right. And she doesn’t even mention the ‘Hinckley’ option.

      • I don’t think I’d have a problem sleeping in the same room with you eric. Coulter on the other hand, I might have an eye open all night. When I look at her I have that feeling there’s a predator no the prowl.

        • a few years ago, my boss (the bleeding heart tree-hugger) played me a song a friend had sent him the link to:
          “Ann Coulter is a hot piece of Republican snatch,
          Ann Coulter, why don’t you turn around, let me put it in the back,
          Ann Coulter, and her conservative family values.”

          • I’d hate to be real close if she had a seizure…might get poked real bad.

            We had a girl in my class at school who was such a spaz she’d actually fall down at times with no visible cause except she couldn’t put one foot in front of the other except on good days. She was as smart as coordinated so there you go. Nobody dated her but now and then a guy would take her out at night. A friend took her out one night, a dark weekday night when nobody was likely to see. He was telling me about it, said she started spazzing real bad in the throes and stomped the radio in his dad’s car. I can’t recall what sort of lie he told his dad but I’m sure his dad knew fairly closely what the cause was. I never took her out, had no idea what to say to her thinking about it. Turned out speech wasn’t necessary. She was popular on the down-low.

    • Everytime I see that clip of Qudaffi,I recall the newsclip of His capture (dont think we were shown it all) one frame He was alright ,next frame He had a hole in His head and a make believe IV attached. Makes you wonder if the usurpers were much better then the dictator,I suppose its a bad case of Karma ,but time and time again these countries really descend into chaos when the “Iron hand ” is lifted.About this time ,I begin to wonder if societal evolution is even possible in these countries fueled by the easy money and greed in these countries and lust for the petrodollar.
      What would happen if Donnie boy and the Hillary were suddenly removed from the scene ?What kind of power vacuum would ensue ?

      • Hi Kevin,

        My take: America is at the Weimar Stage. The government is obviously corrupt and everyone knows it. The economy is not merely bad, it is a casino for the connected. There are millions of alienated/disaffected people who have been driven half-mad by a system that deliberately enstupidates them and instills at the same time a sense of entitlement. These people would eagerly support an American Lenin (such as Bernie) or a Stalin (such as Hillary). On the other side of the divide are the appalled middle classes – the Trump People – who fear the enstupified masses and crave law and order and a return to “decency.”

        Sound familiar?

        In Germany, it came down to a choice between Red or Brown. Communism or fascism. Join the rotefront or the sturmabteilung.

        Or, flee… if you were smart. While there was still time.

        But where do we go today?

        • eric, any situation and there’s been a law or several created for it in just the last 15 years. Now the IRS can merely say you owe over $50k and you can’t leave the country. Do you want to go somewhere you don’t speak the language and don’t look like the natives? We don’t think too much of foreigners of any sort in this country but it’s a double standard fairly much anywhere else.

          • Lavrenti Beria (Stalin’s right hand man) said, “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.”

          • Its happened ,there is such a disconnect in this country now ,plus the Republican candidate is really the only clear choice and I think He too suffers from lack of reality check.The caveat is He the best candidate the GOP has fielded in a while,I think the 2 party problem started in 2000 in a big way (The Dems didnt field my man and neither did the GOP) in those days I liked McCain and I heard good things about Bradley,I would have voted with clear conscience for either one ,we know how that turned out( even though there was some chicanery in the election) would anybody have honestly wanted Uncle Albert for POTUS /(now look who we are getting,at least twice as bad ,the change in Her is dramatic and not for the better .
            What point is there having primaries ,when there is no viable choice ?Eric ,you said it ,”the lesser of two evils”it wont be that much longer till I can drop out of the ratrace and let me till you ,I plan on being “rara avis ” in a lot of circles .When the “Balkanization ” of the US is complete ,lets hope we can be on good terms with our neighboring states (no passports please )

      • In my darker moments, I yearn to see a video of Hillary subjected to similar treatment by an angry mob.

        Then I catch myself and think better of it.

        • “Then I catch myself and think better of it.”
          Right, we don’t want to lower ourselves to her (their) level.

  2. Trump not a killer?
    He certainly has not had the opportunity Hillary has had to murder in mass, but he still possesses the jingoist blood lust. Trump referred to execution when commenting about Snowden. (Played in this interview sometime after the halfway mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64xBtImXfmM)

    And given the power, he may very well be a more prolific killer than Hillary. We can’t know because we don’t have the data; he has not yet been given the opportunity to yield that power.

    You are a smart man Eric, you should know the system is beyond repair. Participation and candidate advocation only ruins your reputation.

    Very active thread! Props Eric on building quite the Libertarian discussion forum!

    • Hi No thanks,

      I hear you.

      Still, I come back to the fact that in this election, there is a clear choice – or at least, the distinct possibility of a better result.

      We know that Hillary is going to continue and probably expand the wars; we know that she is going to attempt to rescind or drastically restrict the Second Amendment. She is without question an enemy of the individual, of free choice. And we know she is a person who will eagerly sign on to the mass murder of “enemies.”

      Trump may expand and continue the wars, too. He may also attempt to assault whatever remains of our liberties. But it is not certain. And it is possible he may do very different things.

      Given the stakes, I therefore support Trump in order to stop Hillary. To at least try to prevent a certain disastrous outcome by supporting one that might not be ideal but might also not be disastrous.

      If Hillary wins, she will make it a priority to use her election as a national repudiation of more than just Trump. For example, Hillary will say things like “The people have made it clear that they support gun control and stricter laws.”

      And she will select 2-3 Supreme Court “justices” – all of whom will share her mentality.

      If she wins, America is done.

      If Trump wins, there is a chance it may not go that way. Or at least, we can hold it off for awhile longer.

  3. I saw this yesterday, then somehow managed to lose track of it before I posted the link. It was a quote from Edward Snowden, and the gist of it was this.
    Break classification rules for the public’s benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President.

  4. What pestilences will the dumbed down army of aMoricons unleash on the world once they eagerly climb into the gold shiny electoral hive reality of Trump?

    Making the world great again and a stage for Trumpocracy. Klendathu Drop.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rx8_vjbXX4

    Charlotte Iserbyt – Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

    The Trumpian New Deal Sales Pitch Technique
    http://www.businessinsider.com/analyzing-the-way-donald-trump-speaks-like-a-salesman-2016-1

      • Dear Eric, Tor,

        The honest controversy over Trump clearly proves one thing at least.

        We who comment here at Eric Peters Autos are not just jerking each other off, but are individuals who think for themselves and do not always arrive at the same conclusions.

        My two cents?

        Hillary is absolutely certain to be very, very bad for the world. I’m talking General Jack D. Ripper nuclear Armageddon bad.

        Trump? As Eric says, “Maybe, even probably”.

        So much for the blessings of Western liberal dumbocracy.

        So much for the myth that “If women ruled the world, there would be love, light, and harmony”.

        • bevin, your comment of “If women ruled the world, there would be love, light, and harmony”. gives the student of history a leg up on powerful women who were certainly exceptions to that rule.

          I’d say the old saw about power and corruption is as apt for women as men, with maybe more brutality and less humanity than men.

          Hillary and Janet Reno were front and center in the Waco massacre with at least two powerful women involved with the Branch Davidians.

          Madelein Albright was as ruthless as anyone we’ve seen.

          There were many such women back through time, probably several in England alone who wore the royal crown.

        • It’s not so much a controversy. It’s a sickness really. Reading that Reed column was such a let down. I don’t Feed Fred. He doesn’t owe me anything. Yet, reading his columns feeds me. Except not that Them or Us one, his latest.

          It’s not the voting that matters to me. It’s what you think it accomplishes that interests me. I’d just as soon vote for a Kardashian. Or for the Qing Dynasty to be added as a 4th supreme branch of American Government.

          America really is a sinking Titanic. Voting who gets in lifeboats isn’t a solution. Even a violent solution would make more sense. Put a gun to some men’s heads and say: “Get down there and repair that hull or I’ll fucking kill you.” Get to work building a raft, or I’ll shoot your wife and child dead right now in front of you..

          That would at least make some practical sense and might save more people than having a nice brotherly christian pow wow about which woman, children, and worthies should live and who should die.

          Worrying about voting for Coke, Pepsi, or Jolt Cola. No fucking thanks. Not even worth your time to contemplate.

          The reality of the world is kind of like. Imagine a parallel reality. Whrer the ruling class is a bunch of sentient squirrels.

          Instead of hiding nuts. They hide these miniature black hole creating particle bombs. And if we don’t all smile and bow. And act like their little squirrel nut bomb hordes are the most important things in the world.

          They’re gonna blow us all up with their little subatomic nut bombs they’ve stashed all over our neighborhoods.

          Maybe one squirrel learned to talk english. And make funny jokes and lots of the other squirrels admire him. And he gold plates his tree and puts the word Trumpy at the top of all the trees he owns. Cause that’s what he likes.

          He’ll still kill you like all the other squirrels. But somehow he seems less depressing to have to grovel and cater to every day of your fucking life, because somehow, someone let all these squirrels get in everywhere and take over every fucking things and the whole planet is got dam nuts worrying about squirrelicide and squirrelagedon destroying the whole planet any day now.

          • Hi Tor,

            Again, I write in defense of Fred because I know him (and am very familiar with his views). He is appalled by the Mobs. The latter-day SA forming up, of various persuasions, but all sharing a lust for the beat down. They are the barbarians at the gates, a Golden Horde.

            God (and you) know I am not a Defender of Heroes.

            But keeping the peace is another thing.

            The question isn’t whether the SA truppen need to be dealt with – but how.

            Perhaps the right way would be to simply insist upon the right of people to defend themselves. I’m pretty sure most of the attacks on Trump supporters have taken place in “gun free” zones.

            Perhaps respecting the right of Trump people (and all peaceful people) to openly carry arms would solve this problem. Perhaps the anti-Trump SA truppen would back off (or just behave) if presented with the sight of Trump people carrying sidearms. And knowing they’d be used (with legal sanction) if they attacked.

            This is pretty much how civility is maintained out here in The Woods. Here, you assume everyone is armed. It is selbsmordt to storm someone’s house – because they will shoot back. The point isn’t that the presence of guns restrains the impulses of thugs. It’s that thugs do not come here because it is not a “target rich environment.”

            Trump rallies are.

            Lots of defenseless (because disarmed) mostly white suburban types. Against feral thugs.

            The balance must be restored, somehow.

            • As a skilled and valued physician, I hope that over time you will see your error and heal yourself.

              You’re willingly participating in you own murder.

              “The balance must be restored, somehow” is just something you feel. Exactly like a clover.

              You decry the ruinously expensive golden horde. But you are blind to the even more ruinously expensive platinum horde. Which Fred is a part of.

              As a rural resident. You are far down the debt pyramid. And don’t benefit from much of the debt financing of the cities and political rube goldberg zones.

              You are a productive member of the iron horde. A bulwark that makes the whole bloodmachine run.

              If you are seduced by Fred’s sickly sweet siren call to “just fund and support the basic right” for men to peacefully assemble. Then you open the debt floodgates to all the other things hyperdomesticated urban clovers will need from you.

              You are a dupe. In your mind an honorable dupe. Maybe even in the majority of American minds honorable an honorable dupe. But a dupe none the less.

              How can you say Fred hates heroes. Never have I seen him say this. As a dupe, you are using your alpha brainwaves to your detriment.

              Alphawaves neutralize and switch off vast regions of the brain.

              When you’re not being preyed upon by the hero class. You are an alpha person. But in the presence of the predator class which has ruled your ancestors for millenia. You are your own worst enemy and self sacrificer. Just like Ayn Rand said you would always be.

              I’m right here, and its way less impressive than it was imagined in Atlas Shrugged. But the gulch is real and its wherever you make it. Even if its just a virtual gulch that all of us here on the internet can inhabit together.

              You have imagination and will on your side. You need not choose between the evil of two lessers. Trump or Hilary. You yourself are a greater. As are all of us here. Why not believe in us and our ability to create our own reality.

              Whatever we can create without the crutch and delusion of the state. Fred’s paychecks come from the same place as the cops who you know are the bane of your existence.

              It doesn’t mean he isn’t awe inspiring talented and absolutely worth reading and worth paying for his authorial excellence.

              But where he is wrong and detrimental to individuality and freedom. Is where he remains wrong. Perhaps asshole is a poor linguistic choice. He is the duper. You are the dupee. But you don’t have to be if you choose not to.

              • Tor ,you speak to most of us,when Eric finds the “gulch ” I hope He calls.You speak of the “Great ” physician,the Lord Himself finally told the crowds to go go heal themselves, you certainly recognize that the allopathic is not meant to heal.
                You speak of the “Iron ” horde ,then the super takers ,the “platinum ” horde ,perhaps the “Palladium ” horde even after after all Poes Raven lit on the bust of Pallas and quoth nevermore,
                “Nevermore ,Quoth the Raven ,nevermore,your wealth belongs to us,you will wealthy ,nevermore ”
                Perhaps the “Golden” horde is the lesser of the takers (after all they only seek to take a comfortable living from the sweat of the brow of the “Iron ” horde -while producing very little themselves (oft times anyway ).
                Perhaps as you said “Gulch ” is where you make it ,for some it may may be staring staring at ones navel in a fit of “Omphalic ” bliss or just as some would do ,putting an Aluminum “Edelbrock on the ol’ big block.The point is we can choose to be happy ,or morose ,as the Son of Yahweh said “Ye are the salt of the Earth,if salt loses its savor ,how can it be restored?

                • Amen brother, and we all know who to blame. They “work” in DC and get elected by hook or crook or crooked hook. There was one ancient old codger who opposed NAFTA and he had been raked over the coals by the “enlightened” crew for decades and now I can’t call his name…but he stood up slowly, carefully and shakily and said shame on those who voted for NAFTA, they have betrayed the American people, their own constituency…..and he was dead on.

                  Today I had the main air valves on Step Child began to really leak after a year or maybe a bit more in service. last Kenworth I drove, no two KW’s, had had their valves replaced also and one Volvo and all had the same thing in common. One came in a box with Peterbilt and a part No. and two came in boxes with Kenworth and part No.’s and the Volvo came in it’s own box with VOLVO and a part number and they all had one thing in common, Made in China. Shit Ronnie, I’m so sick of that shit and shit is what it is.

                  I recall when a part gave up on a big rig it was because it was old as hell and had more miles than you could even remember. But one of those KW valves popped out so hard it would hurt hell out of your fingers to the point I’d put on a glove or have a loop of rope I’d use to pull it. I pulled it one day and a third of the outside of the button broke off, hurt shit out of my fingers too. This sorta appeared to be the same thing(but not quite)as the old Made in USA parts but never in my life had I seen a Made in USA part literally break from the impact of popping out. Oh, the old ones popped out, they were supposed to but they didn’t pop so hard they hurt you or broke. I’m so sick of Made In China I could puke. They can sell it cheap because the culls, of which there are plenty on the manufacturing/assembly lines are so cheap it doesn’t make a shit. When you have next to nothing in a part, that’s what you can count on….next to nothing. There. I feel better…..well, not really. I think I’ll build a vehicle out of old parts and NOS and rebuilds.

                • If Christians would stop making deals with authoritarian statist devils.
                  Maybe we all could get somewhere.

                  If doing the bidding of the US Govt isn’t considered a mortal sin. I don’t know what is.

                  How ever does the spiritual dissonance reconcile in the believer’s mind.

                  Find an accurate translation of the scripture sometime. You’ll be surprised to find the part about respecting the various states has been added by the language translators under direction of the “church authorities.”

                  • Does that mean the Zealots were right ?
                    Eight, one thing I liked about the old Macks they were repairable ,out of place on the road ,but unbeatable in the pits ,the old thirties tech euro diesel would keep going on as long as you didnt ask too much power wise from it.Never had the pleasure of driving Paccar Boss did that himself in the transporter, 3406 ,sweet low speed power now the parts for the old Macks are getting junky and harder to find .Be out of it shortly so no longer care .Mark my words they will find a way to poison the old diesels worse then before (they did it with the old gassers )

                    • Zealots are slaves to one thing or the other. The person that’s absolutely sure is only fooling himself. They’re not called ‘follower’ for nothing. Even mother nature makes mistakes, plenty and that’s the beauty of it.

                    • To quote an old song “Oz never really did give nothin to the tin man, that he didn’t, didn’t already have.

          • Tor, if Fred had mentioned how one side was protected, specifically, while the cops did nothing about being whupped on(and I doubt that….honestly) I might have taken it more libertarianly ha. But he just wanted heads busted and it’s obvious the problem originates much higher than the cops.

            • Hi Eight,

              As usual, it’s the government that’s to blame. The people being attacked (Trump supporters) are forced by statute to be at the mercy of the thugs who attack them. I doubt the thugs would attack people attending rallies if they knew a large number of their potential victims were armed – and the law (and law enforcement) would back them up if the thugs attacked and they used those weapons to defend themselves.

              It is a cliche – but no less true by dint of being so – that thugs tend to go hunting where the victims are.

              Why do these mass shootings always (I am pretty sure that’s the case) occur in “gun free” zones? That is, “zones” in which the stupid law-abiding masses accept being disarmed so that they may be more easily murdered by those who do not abide by the law?

              Why, all we need to do to prevent murder is outlaw it!

              And rape, too!

  5. On the wife’s FB feed last night, a picture of the 5 living US Presidents, w/the caption, “None of these men have endorsed Donald Trump. They know what it takes to be President. Maybe we should consider their opinion”
    My thought, maybe we should look at how bad these Presidents were, and go against their advice.

    • Hi Phillip,

      Yes, indeed. I am very leery of Trump… and yet… so many of the right people seem to hate him to the point of carpet-chewing fury I can’t help thinking it may be just the thing to vote for him.

      • eric, I agree, rug munchers seem to hate Trump……than again, they seem to hate men. In their ideal world it will be like Back to Eden where the females have slave men simply for their sperm. That worked out well…..till some outsiders were captured and then……

          • Nothing wrong with cleaning the carpet occasionally, I am sure that there is nothing wrong with Heterosexual play,between consenting adults.One thing I noticed is that some these people seem to really hate Men.
            On the subject of Putin ,He seems to me to be a reasonably honest person,probably someone who would be good company at the country club or bar( as much as a pol can be anyway- you understand He must know the game by now ).
            One thing that nags me a little these days ,is most woman refuse to make eye contact,if you glance at them they turn their head (thats really not a good idea in some circumstances,sure cuts down on situational awareness) was informed at a major university campus where the Girls wear gym shorts to class ,that if you look at a woman for more then 3 seconds it constitutes sexual harassment ,maybe it does ,Men are like animals sometimes.(But you cant paint everybody with the same brush,these days I dont glance twice at a young woman ,for some reason I find the woman in my age bracket much more appealing ,the thought of any contact with young woman turns me off .
            Wish I was a bit more pure, alas I seem to have basically normal drives ,but can control them when it infringes on others happiness and liberty ,its a struggle but so far ,I have been able to “live and let live “That mantra should be repeated many times .
            Be afraid ,we are setup to find out what a woman president will be like ,come November ,in my considered opinion she is not equivalent to Maggie thatcher or Golda Meir .

            • Hi Kevin,

              I figure it’s no one else’s business at all what consenting adults of either sex decide to do together. Whatever floats your particular boat – have at it! It’s certainly absolutely none of the got-damned government’s business. I submit that all the problems that exist with regard to sex are fundamentally caused by the got-damned government.

              For example: This idiocy about “transgender” bathrooms. It’s really a simple matter of property rights. If I am the owner of a store or restaurant and it’s my got-damned bathroom (since I paid for it, including the never-ending taxes) then I have the right to put “Men” or “Women” or both (or whatever) on the door and my customers are free to use it – or not. Period.

              Simple.

              And the principle scales.

              On Putin: He is a man – and I respect that. As Eight says. One of the many reasons I despise people like Obama and Hillary is that they are poltroons (like our Clover) who hide behind their phalanx of proxies, who do their wet work for them.

              Putin is not like that, to give him his due.

              I admire the Russian people. They are serious people. To be fucked with by tough-talking nothings like Obama and Hillary at our peril.

  6. The thing about Northerners and Southerners, is there’s no objective reality to it.

    Why not use a time machine to paratroop in a million soldiers and modern weaponry and tell everyone from now on its coastals versus the plainsmen. Everyone fight to the death or else.

    Once there’s aggressive force in the equation. Everything becomes irrational and unsolveable. No reason is possible. No solutions exist. You must either stop the force or learn to ignore it.

    There’s no reasoning with gorillas either. But we don’t have them wandering around the cities and wearing official costumes so its not such a big deal.
    http://necaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Gorilla2pk8-1300x.jpg

    • Hi Tor,

      The CSA was not a Libertarian enterprise but it was a less authoritarian scheme than the centralized/consolidated Union it attempted to secede from.

      The CSA – rightly – believed that just as the colonies had a legitimate right to separate from Great Britain, so also the states from the Union. This would not have been a controversial notion circa 1787 but of course things changed.

      That which was considered a given, not to be questioned – the right of any state to peacefully withdraw from the compact (i.e., the Union) had become “treason” by 1861… as defined by the North, which no longer countenanced the idea of any state peacefully withdrawing from the Union.

      This idea – peaceful parting of the ways when mutual agreement is no longer possible – may have been only applied (by the South) to states rather than to individuals but it is nonetheless a profoundly Libertarian notion, implicitly. Its defeat by the Union arguably set in motion the bum’s rush to the situation we find ourselves in today. In which we have no claim even to ourselves. In which the state owns everything, including us – and we are only permitted things, rather than possessed of the right to things.

      • Most guys cringe after hearing news about the insane nut who says to his lady friend after being jilted: “If I am not going to be your husband then by god nobody else will either!” before killing her. Is this not the same reaction that dishonest Abe took when some states decided to leave the so-called union? Rational consistency is badly needed in this so-called country!

        • Eric’s point is well made. The CSA was the evil of two lessers. I have no disagreement so far as it goes that they were the better man. And the southern ladies were lucky to be his Dixie, away away.

          But really, why must you confine yourself to the narrative that one is never free. But rather every man is the bride of some government or other, and you might as well lay back and let your government daddy penetrate you as he pleases. It’s self defense and not rape if you can learn to accept your place and that you are no longer free men.

          But always some kind of wu-men. Your modern duty is to fight for the most libertarian man to be your government Daddy that you can.

          Best thing is to face the reality that you are betrothed to him for richer for poorer in sickness and in health til death do you part.
          —-

          Or maybe think of it this way.

          The best health is anarchy. Find a way to stay out of all systems if you can.

          But if it seems better to you to engage in the sham of “allopathic healing.” Well go on and fully jump in the cesspool water and learn to swim.

          Just always remember that though in a specific diagnosis sense, they are curing you and healing your ills. In a larger sense they are weakening you and making you more fragile and less robust, in the hopes that you and all men really will come to submit to their healthcare authoritarian monopoly.

          —-

          If you’re a battered woman, you have two “solutions.” Kill the bastard and then suffer the negative changes this brings to you, even though it was justified self defense.

          Or far better, in the dead of night disappear leave all your property and everyone you know and love and go far far away and start over and never be found by your former oppressor. Purge him from your mind and memory and forget he ever existed. Wall off the force that was previously in your life and live as a real human being without force.

          This is hard to communicate, don’t know if this is doing what I hope it is, or not. But here it is, any way. That is your real choice. To never feed or acknowledge anyone who even tries to use force on you. Never engage with them, and hope they will lose interest when they see you have nothing whatsoever for them.

          • Allopathic,is not designed to heal ,just to treat ,as far away from these people is probably the best idea,sometimes they do wonders ,sometimes they just offer another 2 years of miserable anxiety filled existence where you cannot have another good pain free day.We do not want to go quietly into that long night like a whipped quarry slave,but sometimes that is the best alternative,like the gambler said ,”‘the best you can hope for is to die in your sleep” the control of the religious have over people with the “pie in the sky ” or the threat of eternal torment sure strikes a resonant chord with some folks ,perhaps the best outlook would be like John Lennon said in “Imagine ” would take responsibility for our own actions,not listening to the little angle on one shoulder or the the little devil on the other .

      • It is always better to be learned than not. I acknowledge your knowledge of the North and South entities from the Civil War Daze so far as I can use it, which for me is not really at all.

        Let us agree that America is the most powerful and brightest thing in our vicinity. Rather like Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky.

        Sirius is gradually moving closer to the Solar System, it will slightly increase in brightness over the next 60,000 years. After that time its distance will begin to increase and it will become fainter, but it will continue to be the brightest star in the Earth’s sky for the next 210,000 years.

        Perhaps the American Govt will also “rule” for this long, but so what.

        We don’t much think about Sirius, despite its vast candlepower making it twice as bright as our sun. And it is 25 times as massive.

        Yet all we think about it our humble local star, because it does have something positive to do for us. We even use it to tell time and to structure our memories and sequencing of events.

        The CSA and the Union, and the United States are no more significant to us than Sirius really. Sure Sirius could go supernova, and being only 8.6 light years away, it could have catastrophic effects on us.

        I have chosen to disassociate myself from things that have nothing to offer but death and destruction from them going supernova for whatever reason. And it makes all the difference, at least in my life. But if others want to concern themselves with the more distant authorities and entities that have nothing positive to offer to them, well that of course is their right to seek their own misery and detrimental thinkings.

        • Hi Tor,

          Agreed. But – as Lenin noted – while you may not be interested in government, government is interested in you….

            • Me too, Tor!

              Ever read Cooper?

              I did as a kid. I felt instant kinship with Natty Bumppo – who “did not consider himself subject to much at all.”

              That was the American ideal. Perhaps in theory more than fact.

              I know of one way, though, to achieve a degree of real freedom – and it’s something practical and I think also politically viable.

              I plan to compose a rant…

            • Wasn’t going to post anymore on this subject but the last half dozen or so posts really grabbed my attention.The most vilified things sometimes turn out the best,if the five living Presidents do not like Trump-Then ol Donnie boy must have something going for Himself .
              Cannot the average person ken that politics are unadulterated bullshit ? I could live pretty dang good surrounded by like minded people who were not scared of honest labor,without any govt to tell us what to do.The thing is I do not need the govt to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt ,not burn old tires and piles of shingles and burn on windy days etc ,as has been said before in reference to other things (the principle applies here too)”we hold these truths to be self evident ” the average person has one hellva time having a small business because of all the regulations ,permits ,licenses ,special interest groups whatever, when push comes to shove we see the people favoring the color of govt ,that favors their interests(anyone here a fan of Robert Heinlein ?) Any Rand may have had some extreme ideas ,but her heart was in the right place ,its a wonder her books havent been banned.
              As Tor pointed out ,we really ought to pay closer attention to the things that closely concern ,rather then the ravings of some pompous airhead that doesnt have a callus on his hands.The older I get ,the more I can see the error of may judgement and how little I really know, but one lesson has came through ,its usually best to mind ones own business . And somethings are best like the saying about revenge ,best taken as supper ,cold and late.People interpret this differently,to me it mens ,give it a rest ,you may lose your appetite for it .

    • Why not do the so-called leaders fight each other instead of involving us mundanes that they claim to care so much about? It appears that Obomba desperately wants to start WWIII with Russia before he leaves office. Why don’t he challenge Putin into a man to man fight instead? This would save thousands to millions of lives and would be much less harmful to the environment!
      Why didn’t the cowardly George W Bush challenge Saddam Hussein to a duel instead of spending trillions of our dollars and thousands of lives to retaliate for scaring his daddy George H.W. Bush?
      Ancient tyrannical rulers at least had the gonads to physically participate in the wars they wanted to fight, risking life and limb. When did the mundanes get suckered into the idea that it was their duty to die for cowardly and sleazy parasitical politicians?

      • “Why don’t he challenge Putin into a man to man fight instead? ”

        Hmmmm….let’s see… Oh, I know. It’s because he’s a mewling little queer who has never been in a fight in his life. That’s it, right?

        • Well, that and the fact that Putin is a known cold blooded killer who used those skills to get where he is. Having said that, I have more respect for him than any other pol I can think of. He doesn’t have to hire it done…..or at least he didn’t always have to hire it done. He’s in that uranium deal with Hitlery, the source of all the bs with the federal land and ranchers. He’ll need to watch his back with her though. And everyone, please don’t forget Clive Bundy. He’s being held in isolation that’s supposed to last for more than a year and for the single reason the feds want him to off himself or simply die from depression, the real reasons for isolation. Is there anything lower than a federal agent? Really? Sure the pols that hire them are low but nobody has to stoop that low for a job to do wet work for another rug muncher, the Hitlery.

  7. There is no “good” way to intimidate, destroy, and murder. The mob mentality will always be the victor. Initiating force is always a losing proposition. Japan and the Confederacy both lost when they were tricked into initiating force. The NAP isn’t just a good idea, it’s a superior evolutionary strategy.

    Even when you win in the short term initiating force, you always lose in the long term. Look at the American Revolution. Everyday people initiated force against the costumed British and “won” the battle. A lot of things were destroyed though. A lot of debt to the supposedly defeated nation was created.

    And now Americans are the ones in the funny costumes. Who get defeated by locals all over the world. Those who use force or condone the use of force are bringing about their own extinction.

    What has been the point of all the European civilizations. Layers upon layers of empires that rose, dominated, and then were defeated. Nothing but rubble on top of other rubble. No real progress or lasting evolution.

    Meanwhile the beavers of North America created the great lakes and all the lesser lakes. Something of actual lasting value that makes the planet better for all animals.

    We’re not even the most evolved primates. Bonobos are far more peaceful and agreeable than humans.

    Trump is going to bomb ISIS and all the oil infrastructure wherever they hold power. And then bring in Exxon to do their thing. He’s just another tinpot murderer, no different than any of the rest.

    Donald Trump | I’m Gonna Bomb The Shit Out Of ISIS And Ruthlessly Murder Everyone Of Those Fucks
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCW0GskdRl0

    • Tell the liberals that ,I couldnt believe the hostility I recieved from whom I thought was a pretty fair open minded guy one day ,when I commented on how Mr Lincoln basically destroyed the the constitution,He immediately went on the attack and bristled up”Oh ,you are one of those people who think the civil war wasnt about slavery!” made me feel bad like I was a dumbass.
      One thing I gathered in my research was that from a war dragging on standpoint ,Lees march to Gettysburg was a mixed blessing,its hard to tell how much longer the Confederate army would have held on(with half the population and and a quarter of the resources the barefoot Rebs were sure a force to be reckoned with,This same guy told me the rebs committed as many wartime atrocities as the Yankees,my research (limited argubly) didnt bear this out ,I couldnt argue the point with this Guy ,we are still friends I hope.I will still maintain that the Norths motives werent purely altruistic ,judging from the way the freed slaves were treated in a lot of places in the North (they had it bad enough in the South) only to have their lives and hopes shattered on the other side of the MD line,I think Mr Lincolns idea of repatriation was a viable solution.I will say no more on this subject other then “most people cannot handle the truth “and to all my Black friends ,”May God bless you “.
      As old W T Sherman said “War is Hell “.

  8. White lower and middle class christian Americans have the same choices the Africans once did.

    Run and evade and be quasi free. Or be caught and sold into slavery.

    The so called justice system, when you look at what it really does, is an algorithm for culling some arbitrarily from the herd to be found guilty of some “crime” and then made to pay for this crime as a slave who gives 100% of his earnings to his masters.

    Things are better as far as the amount of violence, deprivation, and torture used. But they are about the same, as far as the amount of freedom you actually have.

    Being a superpower, means being a human herd mark for extra oppression and degradation really. Americans endure all kinds of things Canadians or Europeans have never had to put up with lately.

    I found Muhammad Ali heroic for paying the price for not killing strangers in a war. But this whole Islamic shit storm is a real threat to my way of life. So I can’t say he’s heroic, if he’s really just for a different flavor of violent coercive tyranny under UhLa, whoever that other asshole sky god really is.
    http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/06/04/muhammad-ali-no-hero-just-hypocrite-dodging-draft/

    • Hey , Tor,
      I wish the average American had half as much sense as thou,in this free country ,it seems the definition of “free ” is widely subject to interptation,I believe it is time for the warring tribesmen and Dutch Slavers to step up and offer their apolpogy for their role in slavery,my ancestors from the high latitudes had to deal a lot with this issue(as a matter of fact ,I cant find any mention in my family tree of my fairly close ancestors ever having owned slaves) I wish people would stop being prejudiced to me about things ,I never had a part in.
      Enough about that,someone mentioned Franklin should have ran for POTUS,(and as good as Abe was, I think Ben had the better outlook ) I really think Ben wouldnt have accepted the posistion ,the only thing I have against Ben was His support of DST.
      What I will finally get around to saying is this ,the masses now seem to be content as long as sports comes on the widescreen and they can get a seven year loan on the monstrous 4wd truck or SUV. There will be increasing friction in years to come as the “Golden Horde “encroaches on our borders and demands their slice of the ” American Pie “. Eric ,people bellyache about the socialist countries ,where perhaps 70% of your income goes to the govt,well all I can say is I would sooner have an upfront socialist setup ,where I got something back for my money ,rather then this sorry thing we have for a form of Govt that gets over half of my income and returns nothing to me but a prison sentence..I believe you are correct if the “Hildabeast ” wins (very likely ) we will never be free of Obamacare and war mongering .Perhaps a dose of balkanization would help this country change its expansionist attitudes ,cant see the need for anymore of young people to be slain or crippled in the middle east (we dont bother to take care of them,when they return with shattered lives.If I ever find the door to another land that is “Free” all subscribers here are invited to join.

      • “as good as Abe was”? Are you kidding me? Lincoln committed treason, according to the Constitutional definition, by waging war against the States. On my list, he was the worst prez.
        BTW, Franklin’s promotion of DST was all tongue-in-cheek.

        • You miss my point(dont tell a liberal that the uncivil war wasnt primarily about slavery )Abe understood the never ending societal problems between the two races and was actually trying to do something about it when the hidden govt had Him assasinated,that is my take anyway and I do understand what He did to the constitution that the Chimp seems to think should be ignored(He did however handle the broke Norths monetary situation better then the Federal Reserve ever could ,give the man some credit)

          • Hi Kevin,

            Abe was a tool of northern railroad (and other mercantile) interests. For him, it was all about the money – and, of course, the power. His personal views regarding blacks are rarely brought up because they are so obviously at odds with the rhetoric (and official histories) about how his heart bled for them.

            Nonsense.

            He wanted them out of America.

            But he also refused to let the South leave America (so to speak).

            In my opinion, the South could have successfully parted ways with the North if they hadn’t foolishly allowed themselves to be maneuvered into “firing the first shot” and thereby (like the idiot Japanese in WWII) being perceived as the “aggressors.” If they’d forced the North to launch an aggressive war of conquest – and drawn Northern troops (far away from home) into a protracted war of attrition (see the North Vietnamese example) the North’s appetite for war would have wilted quickly. There were draft riots in New York. Maryland nearly seceded. Most Northerners were not interested in fighting and dying on “foreign soil for the sake of “union.”

            But the idiot leaders of the South played right into Abe’s hands.

            Especially Lee. While he had admirable qualities, his invasion of the North was as insane in its own way as Napoleon’s march into Russia.

            • My (poorly sourced) understanding is, Lee didn’t WANT to invade the North. President Davis (CSA) wanted to FORCE the North to stop the war – and forced Lee to either invade, or be replaced with someone who WOULD kiss the Confederate President’s Codpiece. Lee knew no other general could manage it at all… He wasn’t sure he could, for that matter.
              Lee believed invasion to be a losing proposition, but he was a good soldier….

              We need a lot fewer “good soldiers” in the “herd” here.
              Our vendors are comparing us to Marines (Marines make do), and comment on how we’ll soon be qualified to do anything with nothing. (Definition of experts.)

              “We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible, for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.”

              ― Konstantin Jireček

            • If the south had played their initial cards correctly and Abe was the obvious aggressor then taking territory from the union becomes acceptable. That is within the acceptable bounds of war time behavior. It would become ‘the president started this war and now we’re losing not only the war but losing territory’. That would not play well and could create a desire to end the conflict. It could harden people too, who knows. But nobody would say those aggressed upon had no right to take the war into the aggressor’s territory.

              It would have still been likely poor long term strategy militarily from the point of view of consuming resources, etc.

              • My understanding was that it was not ‘playing well.’ many in the north were growing fed up with the war dragging on, and that’s when Abe got the inspiration for the Emancipation Proclamation, and making slavery the focus, instead of tax collection.

  9. The LP has been taken over by the Rockefeller-WASP, left-liberals ever since their faction became undesirable in the GOP. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative is NOT what we’re about. Also, they’re fine with pot, but it needs to be regulated and controlled like everything else. LOL

    • Hi Handler,

      Yup. I’m not a fan of Johnson, et al at all. I am more annoyed by them than by Trump – who at least doesn’t pretend to be a Libertarian.

  10. Hi Eric,

    It didn’t seem like all that tough of a choice for me — seems like for a libertarian anarchist, the LP candidate or principled non-voting seemed like the only two choices that remotely fit that ideology.

    Kind of a WTF? moment when you came out for Trump.

    Still not grokking it, frankly.

    • Well I make no claim (at least not yet) to being an anarchist – but I’m still a work in progress. But I don’t see what relationship the (big L) Libertarian Party has with anarchy.

      • PtB, I couldn’t tell you what the big L has to do with anarchy since being a political party is the very antithesis of anarchy. I once voted the big L but never joined. It felt a great deal like squeezing between two big rocks to avoid two huge bullies intent on having my nads. self-defense as it seemed at the time. I’ve hunkered down many times in my life. Like Rip Torn said in the movie Dodgeball, “You’re going to learn the 5 D’s of dodgeball, dodge, duck, dive, dip and …….dodge. “

        • As someone who has been briefly a minarchist; I feel that I can sort of explain the thought process. Most of us were raised in statist families. Nearly everyone will encounter political events which involve a violation of laws or of a political party platform. Everyone who sees that is presented with some choices. Most people chose to pretend that the violation never happened or is of little importance so long as the violator is in the same political party. Remember how both the Clinton supporters and the Bush supporters dug in their heals when it was proven that their guy committed crimes. School indoctrination comes into play here in part because they encouraged team sports, which encourages team loyalty no matter what! But then there is a small number of people who do take issue with politicians violating laws and platforms. These people will quickly learn that their political party will do nothing to enforce compliance with laws.
          This person then faces another choice: Conform or leave. A principled person will leave the party. He will likely try to figure out what went wrong with that party and discover that it was not following the Constitution; and neither is the other party. He then will seek a party that does follow it. I myself went from being a Republican to joining the America First party, to the Tax Payers party, to the big L Libertarian party before rejecting statism. Big L Libertarians are statists who strongly believe that the government can be fixed if it returns to obeying the entire Constitution whereas the Repubs and Demos only select the portions of it that agree with their party platform. Many big L Libertarians continue to research what happened to the original constitutional government and who was responsible for its demise. I at first blamed FDR, then I learned about Lincolns crimes and blamed him, then I learned that the so-called founding fathers were at fault too. I also learned about the anti-federalist papers.
          Many big L Libertarians become anarchists, but sadly many of them just can’t make that final step to anti-statism. Permanent big L Libertarians should not be trusted any more than the people from the 2 mainstream political parties because they agree with them that certain people have the right to aggress upon others. Anarchists consistently believe that nobody has the right to rule over others without their individual consent; but there are plenty of other things that are in dispute. This is why I am such an advocate of the forming of an unlimited number of communities of like-minded people.

        • Mine was 134 but……some questions beg another question. If it had been essay my score would have been much higher. How do you answer a question that doesn’t take into account other factors they “assume”? I was good in school, taking tests but I hated it.

          The last two years of high school were nothing but boring to the max. I didn’t need the credits except for their bs regimen. We could have spent the last two years on critical thinking and social skills and been much better off. Hell, if you don’t even offer foreign language or advanced match just let me go do my thing, which is fairly much what I did. I had the principal walk up to me one day and say “B, if you’re going to leave or just not come back from lunch or whatever, please tell somebody”. Otay Buwheat! I’d walk by him and say “I feel a spell coming on, I’m going home” and that would be it. I’d go feed hogs and cattle and do some fence work or plow and then go fishing and hunting(we always did both at the same time). I could often beg off the Superintendent so his son could go help me or we’d go do some of his work. Anything was better than school….except for music and Ag.

          I don’t think our parents expected us in when we’d go fishing except to go to school. Looking back after 50 years, the only thing I’d do differently is fish and hunt more.

    • Jim, unfortunately the LP has been horrible about selecting candidates that follow the LP platform. I used to be a long term subscriber to Liberty magazine back when anarchists and minarchists would debate each other. The owners of the magazine were minarchists though, and before every election many of them were advocating a loosening of LP platform rules for the purpose of attracting Democrats and Republicans to their party. Anarchism is about principles, so many of us dropped our subscriptions when we gave up on them.
      You can read the libertarian score of Presidential candidates here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/walter-e-block/hillary-bernie-donald-gary/
      Walter Block and Eric seem to agree with each other in this case.
      The LP selected the horrible Bob Barr as the Presidential candidate last time: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/09/ted-cruz-names-bob-barr-head-of-outreach-effort-to-ron-paul-supporters-and-libertarians/
      I will not vote for anyone.

      • Hi Brian,

        For me, the key factor is we’re all under duress. As I wrote in reply to another poster, in principle, I have very right to defend myself against the assault of a guy in a funny outfit who orders me to “buckle up.” But what will happen if I assert that right?

        There is a time and a place for taking a stand. Not taking a losing stand is not the same thing as refusing to take a stand.

        If Hillary becomes president, we lose.

        There is no iffiness, no doubt, no question as to her politics and intentions.

        With Trump, there is a chance that some truly awful consequences – literally life and death – could be avoided. That is decisive for me.

        I am not voting for Trump but for sanity. Even a little of it.

        I would have voted for an alternative to Hitler, too.

        Even if that alternative was far from my ideal.

        But when faced with the choice between a known mass murderer, an obvious psychotic – and a person who may not be a mass murderer… and probably not psychotic….

      • Hi Brian,

        I hear you about the LP being kind of statist lite — I was the LP state Chair in Hawaii a few years back, and the state essentially disbanded the party and told us if we wanted to be on the ballot, we’d have to gather a bunch of signatures. Of course, the big party (the Ds) and the much smaller opposition party (the Rs) were conveniently exempted from this requirement.

        I said we should tell the state officials to fuck off and contest the disbanding as unconstitutional — and the rest of the LP executive committee said I was nuts, that they had worked hard to build relationships with the people who had disbanded us and we should just knuckle under and spin our wheels for the next six months or so gathering signatures.

        By that time I’d become a raging anarchist and was questioning the value of encouraging people to waste months of their lives running for political office where they had 0% chance of winning, so I decided to hell with it when my term of office was up and left Hawaii for Texas, since it is was decidedly less oppressive a state (no state income tax versus a marginal rate of 11% in Hawaii, to give just one example — and I was paying that top marginal rate.)

        • Anyhow, I decided I was going to stay off the radar of the state as much as possible after that, including not registering to vote since I didn’t want those bastards to know where I live and get conscripted for jury duty.

          Also didn’t renew my vehicle registration for several years, until some Travis county sheriff’s deputies turned on their siren and pulled me off the road, leading to a tense but polite “conversation” where my part consisted of telling them — twice — “Respectfully, officer, I do not wish to answer any questions and do not consent to any searches”.

          Anyhow — personally, I’m appalled at the notion of voting at all, and especially for Trump or Hillary. Not going to lend my support to statist fucks like them.

          I mean, I respect Eric, and I can see how he can feel he’s voting in self-defense, but it seems like such a thoroughly unlibertarian (small-l) thing to do — like you’d need to take the political version of a rape shower after doing that.

          • I hear you Jim. It sounds like you were probably in the LP long before I was.
            People who desire to understand how the split between the small L libertarians and the big L ones will probably still not find the answers from the CATO Institute, which used to be funded by the Koch brothers and perhaps still is. The big L Libertarians would rather forget about certain people such as Murray Rothbard who were very influential in it back in the ’60’s and ’70’s when I was in elementary school. I never even heard of the LP until the late ’90’s. A good place to read about the LP during that period is here: https://c4ss.org/content/13240 .

            • Brian, Cato began as The Charles Koch Foundation with Ed Crane and Murray Rothbard. It’s currently ranked 6th as a thinktank in the US. I think it would behoove everyone who comments here to learn just what Cato has done and is doing. You can take the pablum about it on Wikipedia or something that seems much more comprehensive and accurate here:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

              Reading to the end of this article you’ll discover a world of information about other think tanks and the sponsors thereof.

              • 8, I have never been a fan of CATO either. Many of the things they say sound great on the surface, but state or corporate control remains. This is an area where you even have to watch the columnists at LRC about. Too many of them equate existing big businesses such as Wal*mart as being free market enterprises. I would argue that they could never have gotten so large were it not for the State. I also believe that anarchist societies ‘should’ avoid allowing the ownership of land exceeding what one family could take care of by themselves. One person owning 1,000,000 acres and employing 100 people could easily become a local governing force in several different ways. Probably the best way to handle that sort of situation without violating the NAP is by shunning them _before_ they get that large.
                The link I posted above about the LP was _not_ from wiki for a reason. Here it is again: https://c4ss.org/content/13240 I chose this one because it went into greater detail about Rothbard’s involvement and the separation.

                  • Great article Brian. I have had Cato on RSS feed for a decade or more. I have kept up with the Koch’s for a longer period, half again I’d guess.

                    I could never see, and argued with one of their supporters, how their views and acts, how they conducted themselves and their business, the policies they supported, etc., how any of such could possibly be viewed as libertarian.

                    Their record with not only every Republican prez and BC too has been one of deception if they meant to be taken as libertarian.

                    Their record with Bush 2 could only be described as con artists to the public while advancing the radical right, all the while wrapping themselves in libertarian rhetoric, an absolute contradiction of their business actions and support of right wing extremists.

                • Hi Brian,

                  “I have never been a fan of CATO either.”

                  Years ago I supported CATO. Eventually it occurred to me that, despite their constant insistence that they were fighting for Liberty, their only concrete achievement is producing a handbook that pretty much all of Congress ignores. They certainly haven’t succeeded in reigning in government.

                  Eventually I concluded that they were not only ineffective in promoting liberty, but detrimental to it. This is so because they are committed to a fundamentally impossible goal. Namely, convincing politicians to put legally binding constraints on what Govco can do; while, at the same time, insisting that this same institution must be the sole arbiter of the legality of its’ own actions. (Apologies to Franklin, I know that only individuals act. But, I will continue to use “government” as a convenient shorthand until someone suggests an alternative that is not ridiculously cumbersome).

                  Government exists, by definition, outside of the law. Legally limited government is impossible in theory and practice. CATO not only embraces the delusion of legally limited government, but ridicules anyone who does not share it.

                  Jeremy

          • Jim, a protest vote of not voting always seemed legitimate to me. I got a call from the wife last election while running a load to the Santa Rita. She asked if I’d be in before the polls closed. Truly, I hope I am I replied but I’ll be going to the house. I’d loaded the belly dump twice that day with a backhoe, made back to back runs in bad traffic with this being the second day of it with 3 more days left in front of me. I made it home just about the time the polls closed. She was tired too but mentioned voting. Re: 16 Tons. I’d had many years I couldn’t vote and nothing had changed for the better except I was older and tireder and dearly hoped they’d lose track of me. They didn’t. Now I’m older and a lot tireder and I still get taxed like I’m making ends meet….and that’s with a 10% increase in property taxes this year I had no vote nor any other say in. Barracuda’s to them, mouth to mouth.

          • Hi Jim,

            Believe me when I tell you I feel queasy about the idea of voting for Trump – or any other would-be “leader.” But I also feel sick about filing a 1040 and about pulling over and submitting to a search/interrogation by a Hero.

            We live in Weird and Desperate times. We all face the Hobson’s Choice of voting for less-worse (we hope) alternatives or not voting at all and (in this case) thereby probably making it more likely that a know mass murdering psychopath will assume power and all that entails.

            I have wrestled with myself over this issue for a long time. I would normally refuse to participate – choose between Authoritarian Collectivist A and Authoritarian Collectivist B – precisely because it doesn’t really matter what the outcome will be. Or rather, that the outcome will be the same, regardless.

            But here, in this case, it may matter very much.

            Because there may be a very real difference between Trump and Hillary.

            I understand it may be a con. That I may be Charlie Brown to Trump’s Lucy and that “she” will pull the football away at the last second.

            But we know – wth certainty – what will happen if Hillary is elected. And it is not good. There will be more war – possibly, WW III. There will be attempts made to illegalize the private possession of firearms. There will be the enshrinement of Obamacare, with all that portends. There will be no area of our lives not subject to government intrusion and micromanagement.

            These are certainties.

            With Trump, it is possible there may be no more wars. That Obamacare will be repealed. That we will be left – to some extent – in peace.

            This is worth a roll of the dice, in my opinion.

            What have we got to lose?

            Or rather, what might we not lose if he wins?

            • Recently, another state passed a law similar to the Ca. law that allows confiscation of a person’s firearms for what is nothing more than rumor or innuendo, a move Mussolini(Stalin, Lenin,Lincoln) would wholeheartedly support.

  11. using this bootleg of NSA’s Black Widow, even deleted blogs are findable and searchable. Here’s a bit from Richie’s…

    Who Am I? (Richie)
    Born and raised in sunny Orange County, California, Richie has traveled extensively around the world, ranging from Europe to Asia to Australia. If you want to see the several travel videos he has made in the past, feel free to click my YouTube Videos.

    Others consider him an oddity for he has never read a single book in his entire life since he prefers playing poker but that doesn’t render him incapable of enjoying a roundtable discussion covering a wide range of subjects with his friends over a few beers. Oftentimes you will see him at the race tracks.

    He started out as a word processor many years ago thanks to his lightning fast 110-wpm typing speed and his thorough knowledge of Microsoft Word including programming time-saving macros that combined multiple commands as well as creating new templates from scratch featuring styles and auto-updating fields such as the table of contents.

    As he began to work with more proposals and marketing efforts, his responsibilities grew to include proposal coordination, graphic design, video editing for animated presentations, and desktop publishing creating stylish proposals. Currently, he is a Proposal Manager and has written several proposals that won more than $10 million.

    It’s Richie Again!

    Getting good deals is always fun

    I’m using my phone again to update this blog. I can get used to this…

    There have been quite a few scenarios where I was able to trick the seller into giving me a good deal.

    Last weekend in Tijuana, Mexico, I went in a large liquor store looking for a specific bottle of tequila. The store had it and they knew they had a fantastic selection catering to tequila aficionados. I acted unsure and pointed at an extra añejo I did not want. He said it was $60. I commented, “Oooh, that’s a lot more than I thought!” I then pointed at the extra añejo I really wanted. He paused then gave me a price of $30. I knew both of them were roughly similar in price elsewhere. Don’t flaunt cash and don’t tell them money is of no object. They will capitalize on that.

    In Germany, back in the old days, they charged $150 to $200 more a week for a car with automatic transmission knowing Americans would not hesitate in shelling out the extra money. I had reserved a manual but wasn’t too crazy about it. I asked the nice lady at the counter, “Is there a big parking lot where I can practice? It’s my first time with stick, ya know, with the clutch rubbing and gears grinding and all that.” She suddenly remembered there was a special going on for automatics and I didn’t have to pay extra. Ha ha.

    Sometimes they try to trick me. Once in Frankfurt, Germany, I had specifically reserved a Toyota Carina which was intermediate-sized. The woman at the counter told me they didn’t have it so it would be a similarly-sized Opel Astra. I knew it wasn’t the same size as the Toyota Carina so she tried to explain to me the German standards were different from the American standards. I shot back, “No, I know, Opel Corsa is economy, Opel Astra is compact, and Opel Vectra is intermediate. I’ve been here many times, believe me, I know. Do you have an Opel Vectra then?” She didn’t have it so I asked to talk to the manager. She caved in and gave me a nice Opel Omega which was large-sized.

    The customer is always right.

    I usually find a lot of great deals in eBay. Once you place a bid, you’re obligated to buy it. It is hard for eBay to force the buyer to pay up but I’ve always bought every single product I won. It wouldn’t be fair to the seller. On the plus side, I’ve never gotten ripped off since I always check the feedback rating which is clearly visible. Only once did I change my mind and did not want it but I had bid $7,500 on it before realizing it was not what I wanted. Yes, it was money I did not want to part with so I sent the seller a message, “Do you ship to Nigeria? I am a Nigerian prince and I want the car shipped to Nigeria.” Due to the Nigerians’ notoreity for scamming people, the seller immediately cancelled my bid and sent me a message with all kinds of obscenities, I will never sell to Nigerians, they are a bunch of scammers and con artists, they can go to hell! Fantastic, now I was no longer stuck with the bill.

    Sometimes they make a mistake and decide to honor it. A friend from Phoenix and I were going to Paris about five years ago and he told me he saw a $106 fare through Orbitz. Mine was over $1,200 out of Los Angeles being peak season and all that. I thought he was mistaken so I checked. Sure enough, it was $106 with $16 base fare and $90 in taxes from Phoenix all the way to the Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport of Paris. I checked Business Class and it was still $106. I told him to hurry up and buy it before Orbitz realized the mistake. It was a truly memorable trip to Paris although I had to fly from Los Angeles to Phoenix in Economy Class on Southwest for $144.

  12. Haven’t visited this site for a while because of the unrealistic devotion to libertarian ideological purity, but decided to follow the link from lewrockwell.com to see if a seam of reality had intruded onto the hyper-libertarian sensibilities at ericpetersauto.com.

    Congratulations, support for Trump is an awakening to reality. Who knows, supporting a flawed chance for change over the guarantee of continued evil and decline may lead to more swerves off the narrow lanes of libertarian orthodoxy. Can support for limited government, legitimate law enforcement and national borders be far behind?

    Welcome to the real world.

  13. Trump shaves Vince McMahon in Wrestlemania’s Battle of the Billionaires
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

    Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/trump-catches-attention-of-cfr-bilderberg-trilateral/

    And even for those who have escaped the left-right, black-white, yin-yang, ding-dong status quo, who have seen through the divide and conquer formula and the two-political-parties- with-one-head ruse; the prospect of seeing two men who are apparently on opposite ends of the spectrum put their cards on the table in public, together, and go at each other, in order to come to some understanding—that would be a relief. That would be a start of something interesting in a White House that has, for decades, been rigged to disable the country and the people and the world.

    Donald & Bernie 2016
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/trump-and-bernie-on-the-same-ticket-take-the-ride/

  14. Trump is a wild card.
    Nobody knows what he will do so speculating at this point is just pointless.
    Even if Gary Johnson could win (he has ZERO chance) you would find he also has some ideas that are far from being Libertarian.
    And who is to say he doesn’t turn into George Bush or Obama?
    Common sense should tell you to pick Trump because he can actually win and he may actually do some good things.
    Hitlery will do nothing good.

  15. Trump in “Ghosts Can’t Do It” (1989) with Bo Derek
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co0aDXPTK5o

    In 1973, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division filed a civil rights suit against the Trump organization charging that it refused to rent to black people.

    The Urban League had sent black and white testers to apply for apartments in Trump-owned complexes; the whites got the apartments, the blacks did not. According to court records, four superintendents or rental agents reported that applications sent to the central office for acceptance or rejection were coded by race.

    A 1979 Village Voice article quoted a rental agent who said Trump instructed him not to rent to black people and to encourage existing black tenants to leave. In 1975, a consent decree described by the head of DOJ’s housing division as “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated,” required Trump to advertise vacancies in minority papers and list vacancies with the Urban League.

    The Justice Department subsequently stated that continuing “racially discriminatory conduct by Trump agents has occurred with such frequency that it has created a substantial impediment to the full enjoyment of equal opportunity.”

    Trump is “Illuminati” to the bone
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1081337/pg1

  16. Trump knows how to “push the right buttons”, like Danny Glover’s character did to the gunny in the movie “shooter”. I distrust him enough to not partake of the voting sacrament. However, I will be rooting for him against the wicked Hitlery. Reading between the lines, he appears anti war and is explicitly pro right to bear arms. I understand and do not condemn those who would vote for him to keep that evil bitch at bay.

    • The anarchist in me, both “bomb throwing” kind and in the classical sense also sees the possibility of Trump’s time in office as possibly leading to an actual revolution. The powers that be might possibly decide it’s as good a time as any to sink the rotting ship and blame it on Trump.

      No I don’t actually throw bombs, just had to put this in there so I don’t end up locked up again.

      Also I definitely do not blame anyone for sticking by their guns and refusing to vote for any of these smucks. I don’t much care for Trump but he doesn’t seem to be a full out neo-con war mongress like Killary. We know that psycho will get us into some bad shit.

  17. Reminded of George W. Bush also being for a “humble foreign policy” and then starting multiple wars. Trump say he’s against the wars is one thing, but a egomaniac and the American military might do not make good bedfellows. Also what better way for a man to make money than the Military Industrial Complex. What makes people so sure The Donald wouldn’t like to tap into that?

    • Yes, after Mr. Bill wagged the dog, I liked what I heard W saying on the campaign trail in y2k. But that man never showed up for the inauguration. That was the last time I voted for an R for prez, and I’ve never voted for a D. Now I will not even vote 3rd Party/Independent. I’ve come to see that not voting at all is a bigger protest than 3rd Party.

        • And now we know via insiders that the shrub and his advisors were formulating the war they intended to start once in office back to at least ’98.

          They literally told the CIA to go away in 2001 and even held closed security meetings to keep them out, in effect. so that hopefully no one would later say they had good intel of 9/11 well beforehand.

          So how long has the US been free? Since the Constitution was ratified, never, and GW proved it during the Whiskey Rebellion.

          • The united (small u) States were fairly free under the Articles of Confederation. That’s why Hamilton could not stand them, and staged the coup d’etat known as the Constitutional Convention.

            • PHILLIP, yep. The myths about the constitution and its “founders” abound. I highly recommend Hologram of Liberty by Ken Royce.

  18. Great Article Eric. Being a Rothbardian it has always been my believe that that, War is the Tail that wags the State.

    Trillions in debt, thanks war
    Spying on everyone, thanks war
    Police state, thanks war
    Death and destruction, thanks war.

    I could go on and on, but war is clearly not a single issue, it has profound effects on all of our liberties.

    I was proud to be one of the very first members of Libertarians for Trump and to be honest, all of Walter Block’s reasons for supporting Trump during the primary are as equally valid now that the election has come down to Trump and Hillary. I keep meaning to write to him again and see where he stands now, but I have to assume that he will be voting for Trump if not openly advocating for his election.

    Furthermore, If I was going to cast a protest vote it would not be for Johnson and Weld, who I think actually damage the libertarian party via association. If you are going to be a purist the least you can do is remain pure, right?

  19. Eric,

    It has been a joy to see your steady progress toward a rational outlook on societal relations. I hope you can continue with the realization that voting, under any circumstances, is an act of aggression against others. There are other, more effective choices.

    • Hi Franklin,

      If you’ve read my responses to this post and others you know that I argue against voting. However, the claim that voting is, necessarily, an act of aggression is not correct. To arrive at such a conclusion one must embrace the leftist concept of collective responsibility and indirect harm. If Eric decides to vote for Trump we know that, absent his one vote, the outcome of the election will be the same. Thus, his individual decision to cast a single vote cannot be considered an act of aggression because it produces no tangible and direct harm to anyone.

      Please explain how a single vote cast, under any circumstance, constitutes an act of aggression. When I ask libertarians who are convinced that voting is inherently immoral to answer this question, they invariably respond with a litany of awful things done by government, of which I am well aware. I hope you realize that such a response does not answer my question.

      There are many good arguments against voting. The claim that one should not vote because it is inherently immoral (a NAP violation) is not one of them.

      Jeremy

      • JERRY, I do not vote for any federal office because I do not believe the federal government should exist at all. To cast a vote is to legitimize the existence of the evil institution itself.

        No one should be president because the presidency should not exist. No one human being should have that much power.

        But I do love watching Trump’s carnage on the system. The best reason I heard for supporting Trump was this: Trump. Because it pisses you off!

        It is doubly enjoyable because the “you” is from both the “left” and the “right”.

        Although I will not vote for anyone, Trump is kicking the war monger neocons right in their godamn gnashing teeth and for that alone I respect him.

        • Skunkbear, you said, “I do not vote for any federal office because I do not believe the federal government should exist at all.”
          Well, how do you feel about the States? I don’t see them as any more valid than FedGov. Yet if they are, then FedGov must be as well, since the States ratified the Constitution.

          • PHILLIP, my ideal is that there be no government at all. No man can claim authority over another man.

            So I certainly agree that the States are also invalid as well. As such I only vote on certain local things and usually on a “defensive” basis as ERIC mentioned on an earlier post.

            For example, the only thing I voted on during the last election was my State legalizing pot ballot. And I only vote if my State or local taxes are on the ballot, that kind of thing. I do not vote for anyone to “represent” me.

      • Jeremy, I agree with you. I’m not inclined to vote…..yet, but not for the reason of a violation of the NAP. I’m torn between not being a part of legitimizing a candidate to have my implied permission for whatever they may do and not believing my vote counts. I have my feet firmly nailed to each side of the fence. I may get one loose on voting day or I may still be perched there in the middle.

        My hope that Hillary will be verboten because of impending treason charges soon, encourages me, but not for if or whom I might vote.

        Bernie seems as dangerous as Hitlery. Trump isn’t far from where I see Bernie either. Notice how Trump hasn’t said a thing about the second amendment? He’s already made noises of taking away the first and without that, the rest are barely breathing.

        The people Trump has gathered makes me nervous also. Maybe not as nervous as what the Dem’s are showing us but……

        I will be interested in seeing how many votes the Libertarian party gets. If I thought they could get another tenfold increase as they did from the last two elections I’d vote for them in a heartbeat.

      • Hi Jeremy,

        I was considering all this while out running earlier (to try to keep the arteries not too clogged up)… anyhow…

        When I get stopped by a cop because I am not “buckled up for safety,” I have a choice to either defend myself against this obviously (morally) illegitimate aggression – knowing this will mean much worse consequences for me – or I can attempt to minimize the damage by either trying to talk my way out of it/be pretend friendly or merely be accepting and cooperative (i.e., not attempt to defend myself).

        Is it a breach of principle for me to “play along” and not defend myself?

        Of course it’s not. I am under duress, in an impossible situation.

        It’s the same with regard to paying the taxes it is claimed we “owe.”

        I see a vote for Trump in the same light.

        It is the least damaging alternative (at least, possibly) vs. a certain awful one.

        The alternative we’d all prefer is not on the table.

        Trump may prove to be a disaster worse than Hillary, I agree.

        But it is certain Hillary would be a disaster. Not merely “bad.” A disaster.

        Anything that can be done to prevent this is worth doing.

        Casting a vote for Trump is a very small thing.

        • “Casting a vote for Trump is a very small thing.”

          That’s exactly right, eric. If it makes you feel better, I wouldn’t try to talk you out of it. I will, however, blame your ass for everything Trump does to piss me off, if he gets selected somehow. 😉

          If he is rejected, You won’t hear me picking on you about it…..ahaha.

      • Mens Rea – definition: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

        To whit: Voting is an intentional act to affirm the support of the gang of thugs calling themselves government. The thug’s intention is to inflict harm. Therefore to vote is an overt act of aggression.

        I think a definition is in order here.

        Government: first group of thugs that move into an area that is living peacefully and demand the people living in said area to submit to them as slaves or die. If you think this is hyperbole try reading some history or for that matter to be stupidly and politically correct herstory.

        It is my opinion that Voting is a crime. As Eric has stated, any uniformed goon that pulls over someone for a victim less infraction has committed a crime. Don’t commit a victim less crime. I don’t even support voting NO to any measure to try and stop the thugs. Why? Again consent of the governed scam. Hell! Registering to vote means you acknowledge their authority! Feed ’em fish heads one and all.

        When recently asked, when I reup’d for a dl and there was a question (really I was quite shocked when I saw it here in tennutsea), if I wanted to register to vote. I immediately marked NO fuck you! 🙂

        The only moral thing to do is to abstain from voting. Why? As others here have stated, voting is their scam to obtain consent of the governed. I posit that if NO ONE VOTED, they’d lie and say a bazillion did.

        So, Jeremy, the act of voting is an act of aggression. You can’t exclude the act merely because the effect of the act is extremely minor. The intent (referring back to Mens Rea) is to allow the thugs in charge of the election to inflict harm as they see fit.

        BTW, I agree with George Carlin. I didn’t vote therefore I have every right to complain about what, you the stinking asshole that did vote, tried to impose on me, an educated free thinking individual.

        • Hi David,

          I don’t vote. I argue against voting. I agree that governments are formed through conquest and maintained by theft, force and fraud. I have argued many times that the “real” purpose of voting is to perpetuate the lie that “we” grant consent to the State.

          However, when one person casts a single vote in a national election, that vote has no effect. Not an extremely minor effect, but no effect. Nothing has changed. No direct harm has been caused. You cannot name a victim. An action that causes no direct harm cannot be an act of aggression. You are conflating the evil done by the State with the act of voting.

          You claim that “voting is an intentional act to affirm the support of the gang of thugs calling themselves government.” Problem is, you don’t have the authority to define the intention motivating any particular vote. Eric has stated that his intention is to increase the chance that less harm may be caused. He has the authority to define his intention, you do not.

          Intentional, direct harm caused to a victim are necessary for an act to be aggression. Deciding to cast one vote (all that you control) does not meet these conditions. Asserting that voting is immoral requires adopting profoundly un-libertarian views. At base you are asserting that some acts, which cause no direct harm, constitute aggression because of the symbolic and indirect harm that you believe they cause. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon use a variation of this argument to claim that consensual pornography is actually an act of aggression against all women. Drug warriors use this argument to justify draconian punishments to drug users even when they have caused no harm.

          The voting is immoral argument falls into the same category as my above two examples.

          BTW, I also agree with George Carlin.

          Jeremy

          • Hi Jeremy,

            I agree with you in principle. The problem – the issue – is we’re under duress.

            I’d like the concept of other people’s lives and things to never again be subject to voting. For our right to ourselves and our things to be absolute and inviolable.

            Trouble is, they are up for a vote. Whether we like it or not, we have no choice but to vote for either of the two alternatives – or to note vote at all, which is a de facto vote for one of the two alternatives.

            I’d like the perfect woman, too. One who is intelligent and likes sex. One who is fun and practical.

            Good luck with that.

            This election is also – I believe – unusual. For the first time in my lifetime, there is the prospect of someone who may not be a puppet of the Warfare State being elected, who has a real chance to be elected.

            I do not want WW III – or even the lesser wars.

            This (war) is no small thing; no mere difference of opinion on policy or philosophy. Peoples lives – very possibly, tens of thousands of them, even possibly millions of them – may hang in the balance.

            If they can be saved by voting against Hillary by voting for Trump, then I submit it’s morally defensible to vote for Trump.

            His election could also serve as a turning point – a very public repudiation of the Warfare State, which inherently undermines the Welfare state and the Police State.

            These are worthwhile things.

            I vote for Trump for the same reason I file a got-damned tax return. Because the alternative is worse – and what other choice is there?

            • I hear you, Eric. But as someone who cast his first ballot for Nixon, I am just getting to the place of realizing that voting for anyone helps support ‘the system.’
              I understand what you are saying about feeling coerced. But I will not vote again until we have the Brewster’s Millions choice – none of the above.

            • Hi Eric,

              I’ve been defending your decision to vote against the charge that doing so constitutes aggression. Franklin and David made this claim. I reject this argument because it is false and requires embracing profoundly un-libertarian views. I gave two examples of “arguments” made by control freaks that employ the same underlying premise as the voting is immoral argument. Here is another: not-voting is immoral. Civic duty busy-bodies routinely exhort us to vote and claim that we have a moral responsibility to do so. They argue that not-voting encourages apathy, withdrawal from society, selfishness and non-responsive government. The most extreme of these morons propose that voting be mandatory. Just like the voting is immoral believers they ignore or deny the fact that your individual decision to vote or not produces neither discernible harm nor discernible good. So, they must invoke the specter of the symbolic, indirect and speculative harm they believe is caused by your decision.

              However, I must object to this: “we have no choice but to vote for either of the two alternatives – or to note vote at all, which is a de facto vote for one of the two alternatives.” Every part of this statement is false. One could choose to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, etc… Whether they have a chance of winning is irrelevant because your one vote has no chance of affecting the outcome of the election, no matter who you vote for. And a choice not to vote is not a de-facto vote for anyone. This is a variation of the claim that a vote for Ralph was a vote for Bush. This line of reasoning is predicated on the abhorrent belief that your vote actually belongs to some candidate. It asserts that, but for my decision to not vote (or waste my vote on a third party candidate), my vote would have gone to candidate X and therefore represents a vote for candidate Y.

              Voting does weird things to people. Those who advocate it and those who think it is immoral vastly overrate the importance of their vote, which seems to achieve some magical value in their minds. You have conceded that your single vote is meaningless, but you still attach great importance to casting your vote. I find this strange.

              However, I completely understand and agree with your stated intention behind casting a vote for Trump. This brings up my final point about the voting is immoral claim. Those who advocate it openly strip you of moral agency. You have made it clear that your intention is to reduce the likelihood of harm. David says no, your real intention “is to allow the thugs in charge of the election to inflict harm as they see fit.” How is this different from Catherine Mackinnon’s claim that most consensual sex is actually rape because most women (due to patriarchal conditioning) lack the moral agency required to give meaningful consent.

              However, I agree with PTB. voting, or more accurately, arguing that voting is important, perpetuates the false legitimacy of an evil system.

              Jeremy

          • Evidently you ignored Mens Rea. It is not the vote but the intent of the vote that makes it an act of aggression.

            • Hi David,

              I did not ignore it, I specifically referenced your words about intent, and criticized your conclusion, in both my response to you and in my response to Eric. Since you’ve confirmed that you believe it is “the intent of the vote that makes it an act of aggression”, please explain how you acquired the authority to determine the intent of another person’s decision to vote. I find such an assertion to be profoundly un-libertarian, which is why I argued against it in both of the above posts.

              Jeremy

              • “to determine the intent of another person’s decision” – that’s the equivalent of determining whether an act is a ‘hate crime’

              • Hi Jeremy,

                You argue that:

                1. Voting makes no significant difference, has no effect, and causes no direct harm.

                2. Neither I, nor others, can judge the intent of a voter.

                3. To recognize voting as aggression requires both collectivist thinking and is “un-libertarian.”

                Starting at the end, I’m not worried about being libertarian, or at least your notions of libertarianism. I think that objection is, more or less, meaningless. On the other hand, it seems to me that you are the one falling into the pitfall of being a collectivist. This is because you (and Eric) think it is possible to determine what it means to “cause the least harm,” in the context of a system in which one person rules over others. I, on the other hand, view that matter as an individual. What anyone says (for whatever reason) when they vote is that they think I, personally, myself, should be ruled over according to the dictates of their vote. Whether that means electing a specific ruler who pretends to tell me what to do or that some law (or repeal of some law) should be relevant to me, as an individual.

                The question is not whether I have the “authority” to evaluate the motive. The question is “Why would someone like Eric think that I should be ruled over by some other human or some system organized by people who think that?” Where does he get the authority to decide what will be best for me?

                The obvious answer is that he does not have that authority. There can be no such authority. And to show the clear intent to exercise such authority by voting—to entertain such a notion on the basis that it “causes less harm” is collectivist and is aggression.

                You can argue that it’s a small aggression, but there is no question of the intent.

                If someone plants a landmine in order to blow me up, I may not be able to tell at the moment whether or not I will directly be harmed from the action, but I know what a landmine is and if the intent of the person who put that landmine in place is clear, then there is no question that the planting is aggression even if I never step on the mine. Now, you’ll say, that’s not like voting because you are not specifically targeted. But I am specifically targeted. Think about it. And participating in politics is even worse than planting landmines both because the action specifically targets *all* other individuals who the voter thinks will be unable to defend themselves and because it is broadly considered a legitimate act.

                The last thing I’ve mentioned is, I assume, what you had in mind when you accused me of “collectivist” thinking. Nevertheless, there is some substance to the idea of legitimizing something by your participation. It’s not really a question of “leftist” or “collectivist” or whatever other buzzwords you want to throw around. That’s like saying it’s not an act of aggression to plant mines to blow me up, because if I get blown up, it won’t be “direct” harm caused by the person who planted the mine—there is no direct harm, there is only “indirect harm” from the mine. That would be nonsense just as much as claiming that voting is not aggressive behavior.

                Finally, please note that I am not responding with a litany of awful things done by government. I would not do that because “government” does nothing. There is only individual action. “Government” is simply the absurd idea that it is legitimate for some people to rule over others. That idea does nothing direct nor indirect. Only individual humans do awful things. And you may think it is a minor thing (or even legitimate) for Eric to try to have a voice in who rules over me and take direct actions that make that seem legitimate. It may even be a relatively minor aggression, but it is what it is.

                • Hi Franklin,

                  Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

                  You claim that “I (and Eric) think it is possible to determine what it means to ’cause the least harm'”. I believe no such thing and I believe that Eric is mistaken about this. You go on to claim that no matter “what anyone says (for whatever reason) when they vote is that they think I, personally, myself, should be ruled over according to the dictates of their vote.” Sorry, this is just your opinion of the act, predicated on the false belief that voting necessarily constitutes aggression. I don’t believe that you should be “ruled over” by anyone (unless voluntarily and of your choosing), and neither does Eric.

                  In another post you correctly criticized me for using the term collective voting. I am well aware that there is no such thing as collective action, decision making, voting, etc… I meant taken in the aggregate and I suspect you understood that. Still your correction is welcome. However, you go on to claim that, “every individual vote, along with all the other individual votes which have an aggregate effect, causes direct harm.” An individual vote causes no effect, good or bad, on the outcome of the election, public policy, the perceived legitimacy of the State etc… The only effect it produces exists only in the mind (or feelings) of the voter (or those who think they’ve been aggressed against). I don’t argue that casting an individual vote is a small aggression and can thus be ignored, I argue it is not an aggression at all. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

                  Now, I agree with you, and have argued, that the aggregate effect of voting causes harm in that it grants legitimacy to an illegitimate system, perpetuates reliance on political solutions, creates entrenched interest groups that are hostile to alternate, voluntary solutions to perceived problems, etc… But, because the aggregate effect of individual actions can be said to cause harm does not require that each individual act, as part of the aggregate, also causes harm. For instance, it is arguable that drug and alcohol use cause harm. But, this does not imply that each individual instance of drug and alcohol use causes harm.

                  You claim that each individual vote causes direct harm. But, you can’t define the specific harm or identify the victim other than saying everyone is a victim, which is meaningless. I asked you to explain how casting a single vote cause harm. As far as I can tell your argument is that because the aggregate effect of all of the votes cast causes harm then each individual vote must also cause harm. I don’t see how this argument is valid.

                  Returning to my contention that claiming that voting, as an individual act, is necessarily an act of aggression requires embracing “collectivist thinking”. I’m sorry if you object to the term, but it seems appropriate. Coercive authoritarians routinely invoke the idea that aggregate harm caused justifies their prohibitions and punishments meted out to people who have caused no actual, direct or quantifiable harm to an actual victim. You and David seem to be embracing the same premise.

                  Finally, I don’t understand your land mine analogy. By direct harm I mean as the result of my action. If I intended the action to cause harm, then I am guilty of an aggression (if I caused harm to you accidentally or due to negligence, I am guilty of a crime but not necessarily of aggression). In your example, I am guilty of an aggression by simply trespassing on your property. And, unlike casting a vote, the claim that I didn’t intend to cause harm by planting land mines on your property is ridiculous on its’ face. The harm caused by an exploding landmine that I planted on your property is not indirect, It is the direct result of my action.

                  Anyway, gotta cook some dinner now.

                  Kind Regards,
                  Jeremy

                  • Hi Jeremy,

                    Thanks for your reply. I think the underlying problems are that (1) you do not recognize the slavery/theft/aggression foundation of current society as fundamentally unacceptable—it’s not like a landmine and (2) this is because you are too committed to the benefits you receive from the current political system. But it is like a landmine, and participating in the rituals that keep those benefits flowing to you harms people like me everyday. What have I done to deserve your participation in the process by which some *special* people think they own me and can steal my justifiably owned property to provide you with benefits?

                    Incidentally, I didn’t say anything about planting landmines on my property. I just said planting landmines. It’s not a good idea to add in specific important details to someone else’s analogy, especially when it’s such an obviously abstract analogy. When you do that sort of thing, It’s no wonder you can’t understand the point someone is trying to get across.

                    Please note that I have identified the specific victim and the specific harm: I am the victim and, for example, I have had my justifiably owned property stolen.

                    You argue (along with Eric) that some other individuals will think they can rule over me and steal my property whether you vote or not. This is the missing link in your chain of reasoning because you have no idea what the consequences of your action will be. It may be that Donald Trump will take actions resulting in swat thugs overrunning my home as soon as he feels he has power. It may be that by telling people individual voting doesn’t make a difference, and inexplicably separating the individual act of voting from its aggregate effect, that I will end up being harmed.

                    So let’s take up your contention that individuals who make individual acts have no responsibility for the aggregate consequences of such acts. It seems to me, the evaluation should be based on the individual act rather than the aggregate consequence. Furthermore, the opposite seems obvious to me, since the aggregate consequence is only possible based on the individual act.

                    I must say that it is really irritating to be compared to “coercive authoritarians” and “control freaks.” I have made no effort to coerce anyone or control anyone. This “incorrect by association” argument seems to be based on your general collectivist error. I am simply pointing out that Eric is contemplating taking an act of aggression against me—one he has probably taken before, as a matter of fact—and he is advocating that others do the same. If he really thought that his action has no effect, then why would he think about doing it? No. He is obviously going to vote, precisely because he understands that his doing so has an effect. He wants to ignore the effect because he wants the perceived benefit (of whatever he thinks Trump can provide for him at the expense of others, which Hillary might take from him at his own expense).

                    But returning to the obvious assertion that executing an individual act of aggression which has an aggregate (though possibly unknown) harmful effect on someone else is something for which an individual is responsible, let’s consider your (counter) example: drug use. You say, “it is arguable that drug and alcohol abuse causes harm.” So that seems to be the crux of the problem: “It is arguable.” In order to understand what you are saying, we should, perhaps, have that argument. I can see two possibilities: There is some collective harm to society. I dismiss that as nonsense. There is individual harm to the individual who takes the drugs. In some sense, this may be unfortunate, but basically, I don’t have a problem with this. It may sound callous (or whatever you would like to call it in your collective mindset), but it’s none of my business. So there is no argument that drug use is aggression. Maybe “harmful” is a different thing, but if we want to make a comparison then we should find something which can be recognized as aggression.

                    This is because the very nature of politics—of some people being forced to do things by others—can be recognized as nothing else but aggression. So, yes; you take an individual act (voting) which is part of an aggregate phenomenon/system/state of society/societal structure—whatever you want to call it—which has no possible other interpretation than the execution of aggression, and (my contention) this makes the individual act of participating in that process (voting) an act of aggression. It is the nature of the act. It is the fact that the aggregate consequence—not just harm, but aggression—is the only possible outcome, that makes the individual who participates and executes such an act responsible for his action. And this makes the individual act one of aggression.

                    Incidentally, I can think of some possibly good, justifiable uses for landmines. I can think of no possible justification of having some people rule over others, participating in the process by which that takes place, or telling others that such participation is anything but aggression.

                    • Hi Franklin,

                      Thanks for the response. I think the problem here is that you have made assumptions about my beliefs because I don’t accept that casting a vote is an act of aggression. You write, “you do not recognize the slavery/theft/aggression foundation of current society as fundamentally unacceptable.” Actually, I recognized this a long time ago. In other posts, I have written at length on the fundamentally immoral and illegitimate nature of all coercive systems. In this thread, I have repeatedly referred to the illegitimate nature of political systems and also asserted that such systems are formed through aggression (conquest) and maintained through theft, force and fraud.

                      You either missed this or believe that my disagreement with you about whether casting a vote constitutes aggression renders my stated beliefs about the nature of our current society either false or meaningless. You also claim that “you are too committed to the benefits you receive from the current political system.” For the record, I don’t seek out any benefits from the current system and would happily be rid of it. Frankly, these unfounded assumptions of yours are condescending and irritating. Because I disagree with you, you seem to believe that I am either lying or deluded about my beliefs. Leftist authoritarian Catherine MacKinnon similarly dismisses the agency of most women with regard to their beliefs about sex. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your dismissal of my oft stated beliefs about the “fundamentally unacceptable” (illegitimate) nature of current society.

                      “I just said planting landmines”.

                      Actually you added the qualifier “in order to blow me up”. By which I assumed that he entered your property, or at the very least, entered some other property (not his own) where you were likely to be. It seemed like a reasonable assumption.

                      “Please note that I have identified the specific victim and the specific harm: I am the victim and, for example, I have had my justifiably owned property stolen.”

                      Yes, you have been harmed and you are a victim, I have never claimed otherwise. But, the aggressor is the government (I know you object to the term, please supply a non-cumbersome alternative and I will endeavor to use it).

                      “But returning to the obvious assertion that executing an individual act of aggression which has an aggregate (though possibly unknown) harmful effect on someone else is something for which an individual is responsible”.

                      Again, I have not challenged this assertion. I have asserted that casting a vote is not an act of aggression. You have asserted many times that it is. You have yet to explain to me how an act that has no effect on external reality (that which affects others) can be an act of aggression. You have repeatedly and correctly described the aggressive nature of the coercive system and then simply asserted that therefore casting a vote is aggressive. I don’t accept that the second follows from the first.

                      “This is the missing link in your chain of reasoning because you have no idea what the consequences of your action will be.”

                      With regard to casting a single vote, I know exactly what the consequences will be: nothing.

                      “This is because the very nature of politics—of some people being forced to do things by others—can be recognized as nothing else but aggression.”

                      Correct.

                      “that makes the individual who participates and executes such an act responsible for his action. And this makes the individual act one of aggression.”

                      I contend that the nature of “participation” matters. For instance, signing up to be a jailor, prosecutor, policeman, soldier, etc… clearly requires aggression. I’m curious does participation by paying taxes (this provides material support), using the roads, borrowing from the Library, etc… count as aggressive acts? If not, why not. All of these actions constitute participation do they not?

                      “If he really thought that his action has no effect, then why would he think about doing it?”

                      I began my participation in this post by attempting to discourage Eric from voting. It was not effective. As I said earlier, voting seems to take on a magic quality in the minds of its’ advocates and in its’ NAP based detractors.

                      Finally, your argument makes sense only if one accepts the premise that casting a vote is an act of aggression. You probably believe that you have shown that one must conclude that casting a vote is an at of aggression. I contend that you have merely accepted this as a premise from the start.

                      Jeremy

                    • Hi Franklin,

                      You write: “participating in the rituals that keep those benefits flowing to you harms people like me everyday. What have I done to deserve your participation in the process by which some *special* people think they own me and can steal my justifiably owned property to provide you with benefits?”

                      And: “Incidentally, I can think of some possibly good, justifiable uses for landmines. I can think of no possible justification of having some people rule over others, participating in the process by which that takes place, or telling others that such participation is anything but aggression.”

                      Sorry to hound you, but I want some clarification from you. By “participating in the process” I assume you mean voting. As I have stated repeatedly, I neither vote nor advocate voting. Nor do I think that anyone can steal from you to provide me, or anyone else, with “benefits”.

                      Is it your contention that voting creates coercive political systems where *special* people get to rule over you? Such systems long predate voting. They do not exist because of voting, voting exists because of them. Voting is just the latest in a long line of bullshit excuses proffered to “legitimize” an inherently illegitimate system. Should voting go out of favor, the coercive authoritarians will invent some other bullshit excuse.

                      Does “participating in the process by which that (coercive rule) takes place” entail more than voting? If so, how far are you willing to go. Your argument seems to imply that any participation with the State (coercive political system, whatever you want to call it) constitutes aggression. Paying taxes, using roads, sending children to public schools, seeking a copyright or patent, etc… are all participatory acts that provide far more support to the State than voting.

                      I think the problem here is that you believe that the decision of whether to cast a vote is extremely important, while I think it is pretty trivial. The coercive political systems that we both despise are not created and maintained through voting. They are created through conquest and maintained through propaganda designed to make most people think they are legitimate (along with force, fraud and theft). Voting is certainly part of the propaganda machine but I believe directly challenging the core belief that special people can legitimately possess the right to rule over others is more effective than condemning those who cast a meaningless vote as aggressors.

                      Incidentally, what completed my conversion to anarchism/voluntaryism was attempting to answer this question posed by Auberon Herbert: “By what right do men exercise power over each other?” After serious thought I concluded that no such right can exist.

                      Jeremy

    • Jeremy,

      You seem to have gotten the last reply in our thread, so I respond here. I will try to make this simple.

      Yes, the nature of the participation matters. Yes, at some level, allowing your productive capacity to be harvested so that others can be enslaved (i.e., paying taxes) is an act of aggression against others. There are, of course, details and questions to be considered in this case. You seem to ask no questions about being a cop. I don’t have much question about that either, but some people do. I’m sure you can find some person who claims to be a cop as a matter of “defense.” He would say that it has everything to do with his intention. Would you take his claim seriously? I (and presumably you) say, “no,” being a cop requires you to be a participant in aggression against others: It is an act of aggression. Again, it all comes down to benefit versus responsibility.

      Some people want the benefit of “national defense.” For this reason, they claim they must submit to and support the idea of some people ruling over others, and they throw up all manner of smoke and mirrors to try to cover up their evil actions. But it’s really quite simple. It’s an act of aggression (against me). I suspect that you pay taxes and want the benefit of not having to figure out a way to live your life without contributing to and supporting the rulers who claim they own me. It is an act of aggression. I don’t claim that you owe me any help in my rejection of slavery, but to continually financially support the self-proclaimed slave masters is on you. It’s an act of aggression, and if you were a responsible human being you would recognize that the benefits you receive from playing along and supporting the masters/thieves are not worth participating in aggression against others.

      Eric wants to avoid being a victim of WWIII. He is willing for me to be enslaved in order to do what he thinks *might* allow him to receive that benefit. I think we could just ask him. As a consequence, he has (by his own admission) rejected the responsibility to do away with this evil system of enslavement and theft and, on the contrary, participate in the ritual selection of a slave master. Again, it’s all a matter of benefit clouding the interpretation of actions of aggression. Unfortunately for you, the person against whom you are practicing aggression has a say in what constitutes aggression against him. That person is me.

      Finally, I am not accepting that casting a vote is an act of aggression “from the start” any more than you are accepting that being a cop is an act of aggression “from the start.” If you are viewing “being a cop” correctly, then what you are doing is looking at the nature of the act itself. When someone puts on a special costume and wears a badge *for the purpose of doing things that would be considered immoral if a regular person did those things*, then it is obvious that the intent of the act, and the very act itself, constitutes aggression. There is no getting around it. This is the only reason for this kind of behavior. All the bs about public safety and keeping order is just a smokescreen to hide the aggression. If a cop wanted to do something that a regular person was justified doing, then he would not need a special costume and a badge to do it. It is the nature of the act.

      When someone votes, he is embracing the idea that someone will (hopefully) be forced to comply in accordance with his vote. That is the nature of voting. He is hoping there will be an aggregate effect accomplished through the system of enforcement connected to his individual act of voting. The system can be called coercive, but the system does not take action. Only individuals take action. The “government” does not commit acts of aggression. That is just a smokescreen. You want a better term to use: Eric Peters. Individuals commit acts of aggression. By casting a vote, Eric is giving his consent to the idea that someone will rule over others. He wants to have some control in how that evil act is executed. I understand that he thinks it’s for my own good, so that I can avoid having to experience WWIII, but that just doesn’t cut it. I do not consent.

      What, if anything, this has to do with Catherine MacKinnon and her beliefs about sex, I don’t know. I do know that someone who works hard and allows the fruits of his labor to be extracted to enslave others (fund wars etc.), someone who votes as a participant in a system of coercion for “self-defense,” just as much as someone who wears a magic costume and a badge, is committing aggression against me.

      • Hi Franklin,

        I am suggesting that people consider voting for Trump only because he appears to be against the ruinous wars that have been ongoing since the “fight for freedom” began back in 2003. And because he appears to be uninterested in provoking WW III.

        Hillary, on the other hand, has clearly stated (and we have her record as well) that she is all-in when it comes to war. She is a known mass murderer. Trump in an unknown. Mass murder may be avoided by electing him.

        Yes, I understand that you believe voting for either entails – as a practical consequence – implied support of their entire agenda. But I disagree with you that this is so.

        I file a 1099 every year – and take as many deductions as I am legally able to. Does my “participation” – my filing of a 1099 – indicate support for the income tax?

        Of course it does not.

        I get hewing to our principles. But there are times when it is important – even critical – to be practical. Particularly when we do not have the choice we’d prefer – just a choice to decrease the harm done.

        I submit it’s a choice worth making, especially when we are under duress – and when the alternative (not choosing) will – without question – result in more harm.

        Hillary’s election would be a catastrophe.

        Trump’s may not be.

        It’s not an ideal choice, grok that.

        But then, neither is filing a 1099.

        • HI Eric,

          I appreciate the conversation, and as an aside I find your commentary about cars really entertaining. Let me try to suggest to you a (hard) alternative choice which I think is worth making.

          How about making the choice to create a network of individuals who refuse to practically support the system of coercion you say you despise, and live your life in such a way that you can get what you need to live via voluntary exchange with people in that network? Take a long term view of things, and make as one of your first goals to turn in that 1099 every year in such a condition that the amount extracted from the psychopaths is greater than the amount they extract from you for their evil deeds. This is not easy, but it is something that can be done if you put your mind to it.

          • Hi Franklin,

            I do despise the system of coercion. But – like most people – I am stuck dealing with things as they are. This does not mean I condone things as they are; nor that I am won’t do everything I reasonably can to change things as they are.

            You write:

            “How about making the choice to create a network of individuals who refuse to practically support the system of coercion you say you despise, and live your life in such a way that you can get what you need to live via voluntary exchange with people in that network?”

            Sounds great! But someone will need to own the property on/in which these folks live (unless we’re talking about living in the woods, or on the streets or as gypsies)… in which case, someone will be forced to pay the taxes and abide by the zoning laws and so on.

            Right?

            So, we’re talking about compromises… making the best of it.

            Until it is possible to own land outright – no obligation to pay taxes – it is effectively impossible to do as you suggest.

            Now add the obligation to purchase heath insurance.

            One must earn money to do these things. And if one earns money, one must pay taxes. And one is obliged to file tax returns.

            How do you propose to get around/travel?

            Unless you live in the city (where you cannot avoid paying taxes on property, whether you “own” or rent) or on a commune, you will need a car or some other form of conveyance. Cars require licenses and fees. It is not possible – in the real world – to avoid these things.

            I’d like – I’d love – to live entirely free of the coercive system in which we live. But it is simply not possible without either living without any possessions beyond the clothes on your back or living as an outlaw – with all the risks to one’s person that attend.

            I pay the least in taxes I can… legally.

            I end run/avoid Uncle whenever and wherever I can.

            And I never “ask” for “help” from Uncle or for new laws or in support of existing ones that entail aggression toward other people. I do my utmost to cast these things in a negative light, to get people thinking, which is ultimately the only way to achieve the voluntaryist/non-coercive society you and I both desire.

            It will probably not happen in our lifetimes. Perhaps not ever. This does not mean we give up striving for it.

            But it does not mean doing the best we can under duress, given things as they are, is some kind of cop out/betrayal of principles. We have to pay their got-damned taxes and to do as ordered when a Hero Cop pulls us over for non-crimes such failing to wear a seatbelt.

            He has the gun and the legal authority to use it. It’s not a fair fight.

            You do what you have to do.

            This does not make you complicit in aggression.

            That’s blaming the victim.

            It’s exactly like critiquing the guy who handed over his wallet to an armed street thing for “complying” with aggression. He did no such thing.

            He had no free choice.

      • Hi Franklin,

        Thanks for the conversation, I have enjoyed it.

        Paraphrasing you, in order to determine whether an action qualifies as aggression, one must examine the nature of the act itself. I agree. So, what is the nature of the act of casting a single vote. I contend it is an inconsequential act that produces no effect, neither good nor bad, the meaning of which is entirely symbolic, existing solely in the mind of the individual. You contend the nature of the act is aggressive, the purpose of which is to enslave you, justify the notion that others may rule you, etc… You also believe that anyone who disagrees with you on this point is deluded. You insist that Eric and I (even though I’ve never voted and never intend to) actually want to enslave you. You have repeatedly made unfounded assumptions about me, my character and the truth of my beliefs, all because I disagree with you as to whether casting a vote is an act of aggression.

        Which brings me to Catherine MacKinnon. She believes that any women who disagrees with her about the nature of “patriarchy”, is rendered incapable of granting meaningful consent to sex. You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you about the nature of casting a vote is rendered incapable of understanding their “real” beliefs about the nature of the State.

        You complain it is irritating to be compared to coercive authoritarians and control freaks. I understand this but, because you are such a stickler for precision in language, I will point out that I didn’t do that. I claimed that arguments made by advocates of the voting is aggression proposition often employ arguments that are similar, at root, to arguments made by leftist collectivists, control freaks, etc… Specifically, I tried to get across the idea that a tactic of these people is to raise the vague, undefinable, mostly symbolic and indirect harm caused by whatever action of which they disapprove to the same level as actual, concrete, direct and quantifiable harms. Thank you for supplying this supporting quote: “someone who votes as a participant in a system of coercion for “self defense”, just as much as someone who wears a magic costume and a badge, is committing aggression against me.

        Sorry, I think claiming that someone casting a single vote is aggressing “just as much” as a cop is absurd.

        Finally, I commend you for acknowledging that paying taxes constitutes aggression. You are the first person with whom I have discussed this issue who hasn’t conveniently carved out an exception to paying taxes.

        Jeremy

        • Simple question: Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you about the nature of being a cop is deluded?

          There are lots of libertarian cops after all. Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you about the nature of being a cop is “incapable” of understanding his “real” views about the state?

          BTW, it was perhaps a bad choice of words on my part to say “just as much.” Of course, the consequences of a typical cop’s aggression are typically much greater than that of a particular voter casting a single vote. However, I assume there are “little cops” who do little more than get coffee and doughnuts and work on pr campaigns for the cops and stuff. It might be said that such people do not directly participate in acts of aggression. Doughnuts might even cause obesity and death. In fact, there might be cops who do not participate in acts of aggression at all. Maybe there are some cops who actually prevent the aggression of other cops—though I’ve never heard of one. But that’s a little bit beside the point. The point is that I didn’t mean “just as much” in quantity but just as much “in principle.” And if there’s a cop out there, even if he is just drawing resources away from the system and, thus, driving it into the ground, he is actually less of an aggressor than someone who casts a vote or pays taxes. It’s really a question of the nature of the act. Does it support the current system of slavery and theft? Does it extract resources from the current system. Is the intent to participate in coercion of others?

          I understand that you don’t see it. I hope you can understand that a lot of cops don’t see what *you* are saying either. But there are lots of “libertarian” cops. I wouldn’t imagine that you take their claims to libertarian principles very seriously. You might say: When you see what you are doing for what it really is, then there’s not much question about it. That’s all I’m saying here. Yes, one individual vote may have very little specific practical consequence. As I said, it’s the aggregate consequence and its undeniable relation to the individual intent that makes the difference. (And I can read—I know you don’t vote.) Similarly, going around and propagating the notion that “government” is doing the aggression, so individual actions of support mean nothing, is a small act of aggression based, in my view, on error, ignorance, and self-delusion.

          Incidentally, I did not mean to say that you (or Eric) “want” to enslave me, though I may have also incorrectly said that. But what I should say is that your actions are contributing to that end. You have made up something in your mind, based on an error (either that Hillary or Trump is the only choice or that voting has absolutely no consequence) and then you are acting on that error. It’s when you decide to act on the error that I contend you are participating in an act of aggression. Admittedly they are small acts of aggression. I’m just asserting that when and if you see them for what they are, there will be no question. I’m not saying that you are incapable of understanding your “real” views. But I’m saying that you don’t currently understand what you’re saying and doing in a reasonable way.

          I appreciate the conversation too, and the opportunity to present ideas that are, shall we say, different.

          Frank

          • Hi Frank,

            I expected you to respond with your simple question. Yes, I believe that those who insist that engaging in aggression is not essential to being a cop are deluded. However, in my experience, very few people make such an assertion. Most of them recognize the aggressive nature of being a cop, but insist that such aggression is justified. And yes, in that I think they are deluded. As you say, once you “see” there is little question. So, I concede you have a point. If I am truly wrong about the nature of casting a single vote, then I am deluding myself by insisting otherwise.

            However, I don’t think I’m wrong. Let’s imagine that I will cast a vote. You are currently being harmed to some degree. After I vote you will continue to be harmed in some degree. Perhaps more, perhaps less, I don’t know or claim to know. Now let’s imagine I don’t vote. You are currently being harmed to some degree. After I don’t vote you will continue to be harmed in some degree. Perhaps more, perhaps less, I don’t know or claim to know. What I do know is that my individual decision to vote or not vote will not affect you in any way. The same person will be elected, with or without my participation. The policies that person will pursue are unaffected by my decision. Whatever harm befalls you is unaffected by my decision to vote or not. It is impossible to link, in reality, the harm you suffer to my individual decision to vote or not. Contrary to what you assert, one individual vote has no specific or practical consequence and therefore casting said vote cannot be an act of aggression.

            “And if there’s a cop out there, even if he is just drawing resources away from the system and, thus, driving it into the ground, he is actually less of an aggressor than someone who casts a vote or pays taxes.”

            Do you really believe this? Are you invoking Block’s twist on Grover’s demonstrably false “starve the beast” theory? In a world of fiat money, any resources supposedly drawn from the system are replaced by monetary inflation, which does cause harm.

            “Similarly, going around and propagating the notion that “government” is doing the aggression, so individual actions of support mean nothing, is a small act of aggression based, in my view, on error, ignorance, and self-delusion.”

            I have not argued that individual actions of support mean nothing. I have argued that casting a single vote produces no tangible effect. I consider individual actions of support such as becoming a law enforcer, prosecutor, soldier, politician, etc… to be both meaningful and aggressive. I consider paying taxes to be both meaningful and aggressive; and I consider it a moral failing on my part that I do so. However I believe that we all, probably even you, come to terms with the commission of a little aggression in our daily lives. For instance, I drive. Doing so apparently adds some level of dangerous gas and particulates to the air. Other drivers, of course, can’t complain of aggression. But what of the person who refuses to drive specifically because of pollution concerns? I think I’m aggressing against him. I recognize this and have decided I don’t care.

            Finally, imagine a binary choice where either decision constitutes an act of aggression. What to do then? Going back to paying taxes. I’ve admitted that I pay them and that I consider doing so to be an act of aggression. However, not paying them would also be an act of aggression. I am married and own property jointly with my wife. By refusing to pay taxes I would be exposing my wife to risk and, in the event that I was caught, substantial harm. I also know that doing so would negatively affect her mental well being. So, I conclude that paying my taxes and not paying my taxes are both acts of aggression. I’m not saying this to excuse my decision to pay taxes (I consider it a moral failing after all) but to point out that it’s not always that simple.

            Kind Regards,
            Jeremy

          • Hi Franklin,

            I think you’re drawing an equivalence that’s not valid. It is not possible to be a “Libertarian” cop. One may say (and believe) that one is, but the fact remains that one has chosen to actively commit aggression against others; to be the enforcer of morally indefensible laws. You are quite literally the person threatening to use violence – including lethal violence – against people who’ve harmed no one but transgressed some “law” or other.

            Such a person cannot be a “Libertarian” in any meaningful sense. It is like claiming that a guy who chooses to have sex with other men is heterosexual.

            Now let’s contrast the above with voting.

            Voting for a less-worse alternative in an election in which you have no free choice is not the same thing as choosing to become a state-sanctioned thug. That is to say, I am no less a Libertarian because I am forced to choose between Politician A (who will raise my taxes) and Politician B (who will raise them to a lesser extent).

            I’d much prefer no taxes – but that is not the choice put before me.

            I am under duress to choose the less-worse option. If I do not choose, the worse option (more aggression) becomes more likely to befall me. It is not an act of aggression to attempt to defend myself by choosing the less-worse option.

            A person who elects to become a cop, on the other hand, is not under duress. No harm befalls a person for deciding to not become a cop.

            This is a very important distinction as regards moral judgment.

            A cop is morally culpable. The person who votes for the less-worse choice under duress is not.

            I am considering voting for Trump (to get back to that) because the other option is certainly far worse. Because there is no free choice.

            It’s either – or.

            Which will it be?

            Voting for Trump does not make me complicit in any aggression he may commit any more than a German voting for Hindenburg rather than Hitler was complicit in the aggression committed by Der Alte.

            We are in a prison, Franklin. We are compelled to play the game.

            Again, note the critical fact. We are compelled. We are under duress.

            I desperately want to avoid more wars; to see fewer victims. I’d like no wars – and no victims. But that’s not on the table.

            • Eric, as time goes on the more I see voting as giving my consent rather than preservation. I have arrived at this because the government are so insistent that we go and vote. Why does it want us to vote? It wants us to vote because it needs the perception of choice and a ritual of consent. That we consent to the outcome of the election. If the winner is most worst or least worst they get the consent to do as they wanted to.

              I don’t want to be part of the ritual any longer.

              BTW, speaking of rituals did you see the opening ceremony for the new Swiss tunnel? It reminded me of the P.A.G.A.N. scene from the Dragnet movie.

  20. “If voting really mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it.” Mark Twain
    George Carlin: why I don’t vote:::::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

    A few things Americans need to know and understand:
    The war on terrorism is a fraud. A fake. ISIL, ISIS/Daesh and al Quaeda do not exist. They are creations of the CIA, MI6, isrealhell’s Mosaad and NATO. There is a great article at Veterans Today that illuminates this in a way you will never see on the controlled mass mainstream media. The entire carnival of lies and propaganda has been exposed by people such a Sibel Edmunds and a number of ex CIA and military intelligence officers.
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/06/02/chief-of-the-cias-bin-laden-unit-tells-the-world-that-al-qaeda-never-existed/
    Those who dare to expose this horrendous lie are themselves exposed to assassination.
    These groups are not Muslim. They are mercenaries from countries such as Sudan, Czech republic and anywhere else they can hire from. In truth even NATO is involved in training these thugs. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are deeply involved with these criminals.
    The U.S. government and that includes the military are involved with supplying arms, supplies and medical aid as well as intelligence. Just this past spring , U.S. special ops had to go into a Iraqi town to extract a known ex military officer who was in danger of being captured by Iraqi forces. This man was advising these terrorist groups .
    What you are viewing on televised news shows, if you could call them that, are nothing but lies and propaganda and the American people along with the rest of the world are being duped.
    There is no ISIS, ISIL/Daesh or al Quaeda. They are all fictitious names created to frighten ill-informed and ignorant Americans into supporting more wars in the middle east.
    This is what Hillary will bring to the American people
    This entire war is being waged for the benefit of the dreadful few.
    Just be careful who you vote for.
    If you plan on voting.

  21. Assuming that the Donald gets the nomination, this will be the 1st election in quite a while where ‘the choice’ is not between CFR A and CFR B. In case you are not familiar, CFR stands for Council on Foreign Relations, and was founded by John D. Rockefeller.
    Well, Trump himself may not be a member of the CFR, as is every member of the establishment. But many of the ‘advisers’ he has announced, e.g., Chris Christie, are. So he may not be as much an ‘outsider’ as he is portraying himself as.

  22. Those of us who reject the system are often told “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain.”
    If there were actual choices available in an election, this might be true.
    I have also heard it said, more accurately, I believe, “If you do vote you have not right to complain” because you have validated the system by participating.
    I may be ‘rooting’ for Trump – or more accurately, against Hillary. But I won’t be voting, not for either of them and not for Johnson either.

        • The state sees voting as it rightly is, a necessary…..for the state, even if you must let felons vote but it doesn’t see that a very real necessity of owning a firearm is anything but a threat. hhhmmmmm

      • Do you know the difference between a screw and a paper clip? Me either, I’ve never been paper clipped.

  23. All the debate is really pointless. This would matter if there were actual votes-counted-elections in the US, but there aren’t. Whoever will be the emperor has already been decided.

    Watch the show, but bear in mind that it’s just a show.

  24. “Voting in a coercive/collectivist society – which is the type of society we live in – is a defensive act.”
    If the quote is true, wouldn’t it be much more effective to just kill every voter that you know?
    I’ll do what I know all of humanity should do. I will not vote.

    • Hi Ed,

      It’s tempting… but (shifting to serious voice) I believe most people – or at least, lots of people – are not bad people and what choice do they have? We are offered either Hillary or Trump. That’s it. I wish there were another option. There isn’t.

      I’d like to avoid WW III – or even just more of the lesser wars – and if voting for Trump can accomplish that, even if nothing else, it is arguably worth it. And more than that, I submit there is an obligation to do whatever can be done to avoid more got-damned wars. For our sakes as well as for the sakes of the potentially tens of thousands – possibly millions – of people who might be saved if these wars can be avoided.

      Again: We know without question, as a mathematical axiom, that Hillary is a tool of the neocons and a champing-at-the-bit warmonger herself. We know without question that she will do everything she possibly can to cement Obamacare (or something worse), take away our right to armed self defense, to cite just two more very real – and absolutely certain – consequences of her election.

      We know that Trump has at least criticized the wars – and not in the usual Republican Way (i.e., I’ll fight them right!) but in the heretical way (I’ll end them; these wars are stupid and unnecessary). Consider that.

      He has also defended the 2A – and said he will repeal Obamacare.

      I understand he may be shining us on.

      But maybe not.

      With Hillary, there is no chance. None. Game over.

      Isn’t it worth a roll of the dice?

        • Hey Ed. I thought I remembered someone using the tag ED a while back. I’m sure if my handle were stolen I’d change to Tor…..something….ha ha or Gone in Sixty Seconds.

            • Thought I might have that once. After an exam by the doc he said it was something else. While being sorta like Alzheimer’s where the actual source may not be the same, the end results appeared to be fairly identical. He called it OUB syndrome….old ugly and broke. That’ll be $500….ba duh dum. Turns out it wasn’t much of a relief to find that out.

              • I always understood it to be, OUM, or Old, Ugly, & Menopausal.
                That’s after the lease expires, but you can still trade her in… 😉

                You know what I mean, right?
                She wants you to ask about that little blue pill, and you’re sporting wood when the college girls walk by?
                “Yeah, Honey… My equipment works fine…”

                So now I’m sleeping on the sofa….
                Of the new girlfriend’s living room…. 😀

                (Don’t I wish.)

                • You’d think good reviews from her friends would be a plus. Watching Bad Grandpa yesterday, Johnny sits down by this good looking girl and tells her “I may too old to stir the mustard but I can still lick the jar.” She giggles and says “Stirring the mustard is over-rated, licking the jar is the best part”.

      • eric, I must remind you of the 2000 vote. Recall the the brouhaha over electronic voting vs. recorded paper voting? It was obvious big money was at stake and the big money that was spoken of wasn’t paper or the supposed reduced cost of electronics but big money for a given candidate/party.

        The big shitty in Florida with “hanging chads” and other big shitties of electronic hacking and machine fixing just about everywhere.

        I remember vividly when I read a quote by the then CEO of Diebold who said (paraphrasing but very close)”I and the employees of Diebold are committed to bringing the vote to George W. Bush”. I knew from then forward, voting would always remain even more of a mystery concerning vote fraud than it had been with paper ballots that allegedly could be counted vs. electonic votes lost in servers, the “cloud” and endless other ways like hacking.

        You can probably find this on the net. Either that year or the next election(I think it was ’04)a county near me, one that makes most its money from oil had turned to electronic voting with good old Diebold equipment. Small counties population-wise are sometimes easily predicted, esp. when a local official knows most of the voters and the voters, as small county Tx. voters, are prone to make their preference known or with voting laws, it’s easily seen which party they’re supporting.

        When the big day arrived the local head of the election process got the correct sense most people were going to vote Democrat. This was a change but understandable at the time. It was a landslide for Bush so she voiced her concern the machines might not be “honest”. Her allegations of fraud were acted on and it was found that 3 or every 4 votes for Democrats were given to Republicans. I don’t recall much of anything being done about it in that no one ever seemed to be held accountable. It was just a replay of the paper ballots thrown out in dumpster loads for Democrats in Florida like in 2000.

        If I’d ever believed that voting was fair, it was evident from that point on that it would certainly never be again. But the MSM didn’t say much about it for very long in 2000 since Bush won and they were really and truly “the intimidator” party at the time, going so far as to go house to house and threaten key voters in black parts of Florida.

        By the same opposite token, a corollary of a sorts, the MSM seemed to never let up that BO stole his first election at the ballot box….so to speak. Whether the Dem’s did steal it by vote, which I doubt they needed to, there was still a great discrepancy in the reporting of perceived unfair counting vs. 2000 when the shrub almost assuredly was elected by chicanery or what we used to refer to as voter fraud.

  25. It really doesn’t matter what Trump’s plans or ideas are. If elected, he will be told, on the first day, that he’ll do as he’s ordered or he’ll end up like JFK.

    • Hi Eric,

      Very likely.

      But if he is “JFK’d,” then the public’s eyes will be opened just that little bit more…

    • “If elected, he will be told, on the first day, that he’ll do as he’s ordered or he’ll end up like JFK.”
      They’ll probably even show him the Zapruderer film, right 8?

      • PtB, I don’t know what they’ll show him. According to an aide when BO was briefed, he came out of the meeting a changed man politically. More smoke and mirrors for all I know.

      • Who actually controls the govt ?
        Using Sturgeons law we can surmise that perhaps 10% of conspiracy theorys are true . Even 10 % of this is a terrible thing to comprehend ,everytime a lame 9/11 debunking film comes along it leaves me more disturbed(I postulate that these buildings-the twin towers were designed to fall in their footprint to minimize collateral damage,but who could admit to that ? WTC 7 ,no good reason for it collapse that I can conceive of,other buildings around the world have withstood fires for days without total structure failure.
        There is a Hydra around ,but we will not even get close to severing the the immortal head,the two allowed parties are just polarized versions of the same thing ,with the same end goals.

  26. Compelling argument. Really top notch.

    You’ve come a long way babies. Liberated from humanity fraus like Hilary revel in millionfachen Mordfreude as well as any of her male counterpart psychopaths ever did.
    http://www.amybeilharz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/virginia-slim-2.jpg

    A common denominator of US leaders is the blood on their hands and their propensity to not even wish to wash it off, but rather to enjoy the fresh spilled ionized iron aroma of a decider’s “job well done.”

    Bush senior was the head of the CIA before taking his murder biz experience into the oval office.

    Reagan gleefully played the lead role in a cop killer’s snuff film while the Governor of California. While president, he approved 3 more sodomy dungeon deadbeat zoos when his attorey general said they were needed for law and order purposes and not at all because the ruling class just loves a good gladiator death match blood soaked shower scene.

    Reagan ordered the murder of Aaron Mitchell. Who guard dragged to the gas chamber as he kicked and screamed for his life.

    Witnesses, including one San Quentin Warden,13 frequently disagree with San Quentin physicians as to the duration of consciousness. Howard Brodie, veteran journalist for Life Magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle, witnessed the execution of Aaron Mitchell in 1967 and swore that “as the gas hit him, his head immediately fell to his chest. Then his head came up and he looked directly into the window.

    For nearly seven minutes he sat up that way, with his chest heaving, saliva bubbling between his lips. He tucked his thumbs into his fists, and finally his head fell again…”

    Another source quotes Brodie: “I believe he was aware many minutes……He appeared to be in great anguish….” The official time for consciousness from Aaron Mitchell’s record was five minutes.

    The general belief that the brain cannot function anaerobically, that neurons die in 4 minutes without oxygen, that the lack of glycogen stores in the brain somehow precludes glycolysis, is probably incorrect.

    The principle determinant of consciousness in the structurally intact brain is perfusion.

    While there are reports of cyanide associated white matter abnormalities, human basal ganglia damage, and seizures, (the latter most consistently in rats and mice) cardiorespiratory arrest with cerebral ischemia cannot be excluded as the cause. To the extent that cerebral damage or dysfunction of any kind can be singled out, white matter is more vulnerable than neurons and the dysfunction is reversible.

    In Brierly’s many careful experiments with monkeys, cyanide did not cause seizures or, absent ischemia, direct brain damage leading that investigator to question whether the “notion of histotoxic hypoxic” brain damage was not the result of “constant repetition.”
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7651

  27. A vote for killery is a vote for the end of human civilization.
    Paul Craig Roberts explains on Lew Rockwell’s website.

    • Hi Doug,

      I know Paul a little from my days in DC; his thinking on Trump helped persuade me to the view that voting for him – notwithstanding the possibility he may prove to be another one of them – is important because of the absolute certainty that she is.

      • In an interview I read with Trump last year he said Hil would come to his wedding because she owed him since he’d given her money. When he spoke of politicians he made it known he viewed them(both parties since he gives to all)they are bought and paid for and do what is asked of them not wanting to risk having a few bucks thrown their way.

        As an aside to that, I’ve read of the contribution amounts given to various pols by various entities. It’s downright amazing what a paltry sum of $5,000 will get you in a senate vote.

  28. Too true, Eric, the neocon warmongers are leading us to the end of the world as we know it, and I don’t feel fine. Hillary seems to think we can continue poking the Russian bear with no consequences and doucheus americanus can’t see anything from their perspective. Imagine the howling if Russia had troops on our borders; I was in high school in 1963 when we dodged nuclear war over missiles 90 miles off the coast. Fast forward 50+ years and here we are again rattling nuclear sabers, only now both sides have way more of them and they’re orders of magnitude more powerful. Putin is no pushover and who knows how much more meddling and provocation he’s willing to put up with.
    Maybe our overlords think they can ride things out in their Fueherbunkers but most of us have no desire to be incinerated for the glory of the empire. A vote for Hillary is a vote for national suicide.

    • I recall lying in bed and listening to the radio, not knowing if we’d be alive tomorrow or not, living right in the midst of old Minuteman silos and Dyess AFB where strategic bombers were based. Of course there was no good place to be since being in the middle of nowhere in any state was generally the largest target besides the big cities. We had plenty of that stuff to our west so predominate winds would give us a good dose in any event.

      Bush the lesser is one of the End Day people, supposedly religious(but he can’t quote or answer any religious questions). The warmongers were all End Dayers although I don’t believe they thought it applied to them, just maybe their children.

      Twice screwed by Bush millions of voters stayed home but after 4 years of BO it didn’t go un-noticed that 50 million voters stayed home. That does get a pols attention but as long as 50 million go to the pols, they just look at all the ones who stayed home as a big game to be bagged and fortunes extended hence. Piranhas up their wazoo.

    • Choosing not to decide is not the same as choosing not to vote.
      I too would prefer to give Trump a chance, because he has not been proven to be what we know Hillary and the rest of the neo-cons to be. But that does not mean I will waste my time (and gas) going to the poll.
      As Uncle Joe said, it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.
      Or Emma Goldman – “If voting made a difference, it would not be legal” (or words to that effect)

  29. Hi Eric,

    Given that your vote cannot influence the outcome of the presidential election, why sully yourself by participating. Voting is a con, its’ purpose is to legitimize fraud, namely that the State has the right to rule over us. Individual voting is a purely symbolic act, as it cannot alter the outcome of the election. However, the symbolic purpose of the act is antithetical to freedom. It perpetuates the notion that the State is legitimate and it codifies the appalling idea that one group of people, merely by their number, can violate the rights of another group of people.

    While your individual vote cannot produce actual harm (thus it is not intrinsically immoral, as some libertarians believe), it also can produce no good. Therefore, the undeniable harm caused by collective voting should be enough to dissuade one who recognizes the true nature of the State from participating.

    Jeremy

      • However, NOT voting DOES influence the outcome. It allows all sorts of chicanery and manipulation, by claiming you are part of the “silent majority.”

        Maybe we need to be more vocal. I’d suggest an echo chambered in .50 or greater… Or maybe a Metal Storm.
        #BLM is doing pretty well. Tea Party was essentially destroyed by The Establishment….
        Which was peaceful again?
        Islam is conquering a dozen countries at once….
        And the police are going after…? Those evil Conservative Throwbacks who want to preserve German, Polish, Swedish, etc. cultures.

        We’re too polite for our own good.

        • Hi Jean,

          “However, NOT voting DOES influence the outcome. It allows all sorts of chicanery and manipulation, by claiming you are part of the ‘silent majority.’ ”

          I’m not sure what you mean by this. “Chicanery and manipulation” are rampant in all political systems. How does choosing not to vote come into play?

          Jeremy

    • Certainly not my vote alone. But the votes of millions?

      We live in difficult times. There are no easy choices; no ideal ones, certainly.

      But this may be an opportunity – for once! – to actually effect a change for the better. What if Trump actually means what he says about the wars? He just might.

      We’ll never know if Hillary wins. And if she does win, we know what we are going to get with certainty.

      Imagine I am trying to save children caught inside a burning house. Would I refuse assistance from a person I didn’t particularly like or agree with but who also seemed genuinely concerned about saving the kids?

      Trump is a narcissist. But Hillary is a psychopath.

      You tell me.

    • Dear Jeremy,

      I hear you.

      That’s why even though I agree with Eric’s assessment of how vastly worse Hillary is than Trump, I can’t quite bring myself to actually cast a ballot.

      I was teetering on the edge when Ron Paul was still in the running. But needless to say Trump is no Ron Paul. Hell, even Rand Paul isn’t Ron Paul.

      Also, voting for Ron Paul, had I done it, would not have been because I thought he could make a difference within the system. It would have been because I thought he could make a difference during the election campaign, and turn people on to anarchism, as he already has.

      I may secretly root for Trump, merely because the Neocon/Neolib PTB detest him. But I can’t quite bring myself to actually vote, for him or anybody.

      • I voted for Ron back in 88. I didn’t even really know then what he stood for, just knew I did not want Bush the Elder. Voted for him in the primaries in 08 and 12. But that’s it, I’m done.

    • Hi Jeremy,

      I don’t mean to hound you here, but I was reading on down the thread and see that you come out here very explicitly with your collectivism—this time on the other side. There is only individual action. An individual taking a particular action (voting) is viewed as doing no harm. But “collective voting,” now that’s clearly harmful. Ha ha. Very funny. Only individuals vote. There is no “collective voting.”

      Don’t be fooled. Every individual vote, along with all the other individual votes which have an aggregate effect, causes direct harm. There is only individual volition and individual action. There is no collective decision; there is no collective action.

  30. I wonder how one would even stop day laborers from congregating at the local Home Depot. That’s a job for some real deadsouled heroes, I’d wager.

    To be that kind of hero. First substitute or own conscience and feelings for the good book of scripture. Once you get well versed in that shuffle uffagus mindset. It’s not much more of a stretch to entertain the notion that the constitution and laws of your nation are also a good book of scripture for the most part.

    Then never look at reality. To heads bashed open. To tired and poor all cut up and wearing sweaty infested rags. And talking to you in halting English with their teeth black spotted and rotting from their heads and they couldn’t be more deferrent and humble about the whole jurisdictional shit show, but you just keep saying that Psalm to yourself about some invisible Lord being a shepherd, all the while you’re being a heartless bastard worthily awaiting your day in heaven when the muslims will brickbat you with their shoes and roast your stomachs in hell.

    I’ve stopped over at the Depot and said I needed a guy or 2. And then its a race of dozen guys and whichever the first one or two to jump in your pickup bed, or into your SUV are the winners and the ones you are meant to hire. And the other bean eaters all respect that protocol and then you take them to the site and work the living shit out of them for 20 an hour, but never let them out of yours or someone in your families site. Otherwise they’ll slack off and steal your shit and call their mamacita’s on their sailo fawnos just like any American millenial crapbag also would.

    If your reasonably pro choice, you’d know you need to abort this whole political tooth fairy shit. No matter who you vote for, there ain’t gonna be prosperity under you pillow, and you got dam know that already, I hope.

    Hey look the founders promised us if we the people merely put that under the pillow, when we wake up in four score and seven hours later will have a nice surprise and mo perfect yune yun.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWZQpSryOR4

    • I know this is an awful choice to have to make, but maybe this analogy will help:

      We are on a ship – think, Titanic – sinking in the middle of the ocean. There are only so many lifeboats. Some people are not going to make it. But some people might. Choices have to be made – whether we like them or not. Some choices could result in more people making it. Those would seem to be the right choices to make.

      With regard to this situation, I feel obligated to choose Trump because he seems to not be interested in the got-damned wars. Not the current ones. And not the new ones all the rest of them are tub-thumping for.

      He doesn’t seem to want WWIII.

      I can get behind that.

      • Hi Eric,

        But, we have no sane reason to believe that Trump won’t be just as bad as Hillary. Tor is right about him. He is a lifelong political insider and corporate thief who has, incredibly, succeeded in branding himself as anti-establishment. I will assume that his primary goal is power (like all politicians). Thus, I take everything he says as merely a means to that end. He, to the consternation of many pundits, is particularly good at recognizing and tapping into the inchoate feelings of many Americans. He never ties himself to any concrete policies or ideas. Thus, he can seem to embrace anti-war sentiments and a more sane foreign policy to some and embody chest-thumbing belligerent ultra-nationalism to others. We have no idea what he will do as President. The one thing I am sure of is that power is the only “principle” he respects.

        I just won’t play the lesser of two evils game. I know with certainty that my vote, if I choose to cast it, cannot affect the outcome of the election. I also know, with certainty, that voting, in the abstract, lends credibility to an inherently immoral and fraudulent institution.

        Jeremy

        • Hi Jeremy,

          He has criticized the regime change/nation-building agenda of the neocons. And earned their enmity. That goes in his favor.

          I agree he is a political insider and corporate thief. But he may not be a mass murderer. Clinton is. If she becomes president, it is a certainty there will be more “fights for freedom” all over the globe, particularly in Syria, probably in Iran and possibly in Eastern Europe.

          I agree the choice is dismal – but if it is possible to stave off another war (possibly WW III) by preventing the election of Hillary by voting for Trump, then I submit it’s worth voting for Trump int he interests of humanity.

          I believe the stakes are that high.

          I understand – to repeat – that Trump may be just as bad as Hillary.

          But we know how bad Hillary will be.

          • Hi Eric,

            I understand your position, I just don’t believe that the vanishingly small chance that Trump significantly alters, for the better, the disastrous course of US policy warrants participating in the fraud of voting. Now, as I said earlier, I don’t believe that voting is inherently immoral so I won’t criticize one for choosing to vote on those grounds. However, as you concede, your one vote can’t matter, but millions of votes may. So, in reality you are encouraging large scale participation and cooperation with a system you believe to be inherently immoral and corrupt. How does this serve the long term goal of attaining a free and voluntary society?

            Yes, we know what we will get with Hillary, and it will be awful. What if Trump is even worse? In truth, we can’t know in advance, so I don’t think speculation on this point is very helpful. However, many on this site believe that the State is dangerous, violent, corrupt and inherently immoral. Based on your writings, you seem to agree. Ultimately, encouraging people to vote serves the interests of the State. Perhaps it’s just self-serving narcissism on my part, but I refuse to offer up this sacrament.

            Jeremy

      • You’re a political writer, so it is expected you write about the “most deadly game” as I would characterize it.

        As to the Titanic. If the boat was populated by idealized non-English speaking non politicized Asians, which maybe or maybe don’t exist.

        These non-delusional Asians would see that Round Eye Westerners had steered into an iceberg, but they wouldn’t have remedy of vibrating their vocal cords and debating with those in power. They don’t speak the language, know the political customs.

        What these guys would have instead is an objective understanding of reality and the ability to alter matter to suit their purposes, because now, there’s no political thug to stop you.

        Look over their, you saw it in the movie. It’s a wooden banister and lots of decorative woodwork. Why now that I think of it. Wood floats. Sun Tzu be praised. I’ve got a battle for my survival I can win, if i’m good and fast enough.

        After a quick scavenger hunt I build myself a “boat.” Doesn’t have to sail anywhere, just keep me out of the frozen waters long enough to be rescued. And there’s even a chance for a profit.

        Lots of people don’t have the carpentry and fabrication skills to put together a flotation barge on the fly, like I do.

        That’s what a sentient human should do.

        Not run to the history book, or law books, or religious books, or political books. But rather the carpentry books.

        Because memorizing slogans or aphorisms isn’t going to save you when the ship sinks. Finding who is the best person. Most moral person. Kindest most decent likeable fellow. None of that stuff matters when you’re sinking.

        Only the clear headed who deals with reality as it actually exists, not some idealized general principle or golden rule.

        I appreciate the challenge that will rear up against what I’m saying. But I think I’m on something. oops I mean onto something.

        Musing about trump. Or about football. Or autos is all well and good. If you have the luxury of dabbling in your free time. We can all have this luxury, if we just reconnect without our primitive past.

        Millenia ago, we used tools to work lithic material and make other tools. And basically we can still do this. We don’t need to buy all their crap at the crap warehouse. We can make a passable hammer. Hatchet.

        Buy a clippers and cut our own hair. Research dental hygiene and clean each others teeth. Learn about our vital stats, and monitor our own health. Test our own blood and urine we’re just biological cars at the most simple level.

        And turn our back on all that doesn’t matter. Like what color something it is. Or the styling. Or the logos. And what title everyone has. Do you need a degree or license to fix things. Of course not. Are your skills any different in Edentulitia or in Zimbabwe. Not at all. Jurisdictions are meaningless, except if they are so successful that you can’t get certain kinds of capital to the jurisdiction prison yard of a country you currently are held captive in.

        The danger of trump isn’t what he does or says. Or can do or cant do. Its the same danger a possum might face. For now he hides until night, and then comes out and does his thing. But what if a possum was elected and promised that possums will be safe from now on. Trust him, he is a great leader who will look out for what you care about.

        And then in a few terms, you’ve forgotten how to even be nocturnal. And the next guy gets in power and its open season on all those stinky miscreant nocturnal bastards. Why can’t they do things in the daylight like the rest of us. We don’t want those unaccountable marsupial fucks scurrying around on our property unsupervised while we’re trying to get some sleep. They have opposable toes. What’s that all about only primates and possums have opposable digits. That’s worrying.

        Vote George Jones. The Possum. 2016. Because voting is the refuge of the imbecile victim of his better predator go getter hop in with our old lady and her bed header and kick you to the curb into the woods 1000 watt well lit suburb.

        Tribute to The Possum
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SULy6B0tgHk

  31. Trump is a self-shiller 24/7. He stays in character at all times. Blathers on and on about the Trump brand. How that brand’s about excellence, quality. That its the gold plated standard best you can get. Yada yada yada. And he does the same for all his compliant fellow cronies.

    I don’t see the attraction or value of all the words and am surprised anyone does.

    His products and services are what they are, objectively. You or someone you trust can carefully inspect and determine how good or bad they are in the usual way.

    Corporate fucking shills, everything they say is suspect. Except its not. Scott Adams blogged about the Trump shill genius. And it appears it works even here. He says something like “Jeb Bush has low energy” or something over and over enough times. And before you know it, the repetition and his confident delivery have made it stick.

    Let me clue you in to what Trump is. He’s just another douchebag reading off teleprompters and memorized scripts. And he’s better than most at fleshing out the pre-designed talking points about whatever issue might happen to arise. Its all very polished, and Joe Schmoe seems to eat this kind of faux reality right up.

    It’s got dam fake, you morons. Just like your morning newscasters and weather bimboes who are yucking it up. And back slapping each other about how great this morning is gonna be. And oh no, time for a stern serious voice. A child had to get shot dead last night cause he did something terrible, and the heroes and authorities are just sick about it. And they’re all fake shills too. And it’s all just so much plug wire setting and agenda encoding and decoding of the all powerful Oz Enigma machine that you munchkins and lollipop guilders look destined to follow all the yellow brook way into trumps orange spraypainted sphincter. I hope you enjoy your new asshole in chief you rectumphiles. Fuck.

    Off my own thread… The Trump Tower in New York is 666 feet tall. Maybe Trump is the beast or something. Gack, this kind of shit probably gets more traction with you founding parchment scribblers book bible gangbanging if its written somewhere it has to be true goombahs.

    Once more… There are no United States. Some a-hole got out a map and randomly concocted some fantasy out of his ass. So ipso fucking facto there is no least worst candidate to administer this star spangled real estate that has no validity or truth about it whatsoever. It’s a machine reality for machine men with mechanical hearts

    lets not unite in the name of any manner of bullshit, but rather hear the truth where part of this speech is truth, and recognize the shill and the false, where Chaplin is speaking as a shill or asserting something false. I know you can. Yes you can. Yes you can. Yes you can.

    NutzenKostenFreude for the excellence of this film, yet understanding of what is untrue and misleading about this otherwise excellent work of art.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA

    • Ho Tor,

      I don’t disagree with any of that. But – again – we have the choice. Hillary or him. I don’t like the choice, either. But that’s the choice.

      We know what she is.

      It’s still to be determined what Trump is.

      At least as regards the lust for war. He seems to lust for money and adulation – two much lesser evils.

      • I’m tired as hell right now but I’d take you to task and list many things the Donald has said that should scare hell out of anyone…..including a frickin clover. I really believe you need to investigate just exactly what he’s said and what he’s implied and the things in between he hasn’t said but seems to want and has even said he wants such as throwing the 1st amendment out the window although that’s not exactly what he said but it’s what he seemed to mean. He’d take eric or anyone else with a forum who dissed him….in his view…..even if it was to repeat exactly what he said and tear them a new ass, not just in civil court but in criminal court. He’s not to be disagreed with nor have someone translate the hate speech he’s so full of. This is simply the tip of the iceberg. I have much more to say after some sleep. Shit, I hate this goddamn winders 8.

        • Hi Eight,

          No need to school me on that; I am well aware. But – again – we know, with absolute certainty what we will get if she becomes Dear Leader. With Trump, there is the possibility we may get something else. Possibly, something better.

          I fully grok there will not be a Libertarian society or even a return to small government constitutionalism.

          But Trump is the only candidate (with a real shot of winning) who has criticized – vociferously – the neocons. Isn’t that worth something? The fact that they hate him makes me like like him.

          Bottom line: If there is a chance that preventing the ascension of Hillary prevents more war – very possibly, the war – then it is worth voting for Trump.

          I honestly believe the stakes are that high.

          Because I am certain that a Hillary Decidership will mean not just the end of whatever’s left of America as we knew it, but very possibly of the world, too.

          Literally.

          I have dealt with creatures such as Kristol; I have seen them up close. They are literally out of their got-damned minds. They are prepared – eager – to dance in pools of gasoline with lit matches for the sake of their Unipolar Decidership of America.

          • eric, I’ll forget the hyperbole and simply say, it reeks of smoke and mirrors, the entire gamutka. Been jaded too long I guess. I got on a peace train once and the guy was offed by the usual suspects.

        • Bring back XP!
          Anyway I secretly hope that Trump ,doesnt matter that much to me ,state in its wisdom took away my gun rights (important ) and voting rights (not as important-least I dont have to try to get out of jury duty now,the caveat is I cant help many malfactors skate)
          However as Eric pointed out ,Trump doesnt thump His chest and proclaim the Chickenhawks and Brightest and best are the bastions of freedom as the role of in the role of Gaias policeforce.Makes me so mad (the Hg is creeping up on the sphygy-whatever manometer ,the sad truth and point is ,many will be disappointed if Trump and His Quick hairpiece win(Dunno ,maybe it is real,please dont fire me,Mr T.

          • Hi Kevin,

            One the most persuasive reasons for voting for Trump is that his election would be a repudiation of the chickenhawks and their never-ending Terror Wars (on us).

            Whether he actually ends them or not.

            This is critical.

            His election would make it clear that Americans, large numbers of them, are not interested in the “fight fer freedom.” Are on to the con.

            Even if he were to renege and be Just Like Hillary, he would do so at his peril because of the utter contempt in which he’d be held.

            In other words, Trump is valuable because he is de-legitimizing the FedGov and the Empire.

            • “his election would be a repudiation of the chickenhawks ”

              Or so they pretend. It looks like their usual triple-cross to me. TPTB, in my experience, never allow anyone onto the ticket unless it serves their agenda.

              Trump is in debt up to his eyeballs to the very people he says he’s opposing.

              • I have thought this, too, from time to time.

                What if this whole thing is a well-orchestrated rope-a-dope – on us?

                • Antonio, I really think it is just a rope-a-dope on y’all. I won’t say on us because I ain’t up.

                  Voting, as Clyde Wilson wrote, is an act of general cluelessness, like chewing gum.

      • What about Johnson? I remember libertarians practically having orgasms over this dullard in 2012, but today, as the “party” coronated him at their convention, half are mad. Look at his choice for VP, a RINO retard from MA. I saw Johnson as a phony and a pretty poor governor from New Mexico several years ago. I didn’t vote for him in 2012. In fact, I didn’t vote.

        I’m with you on Trump. His ability to run roughshod over that clownfest running this year is worth something. His stated opposition to unlimited, tariff less trade with countries like Mexico, China and Vietnam is worth something. That’s a hell of a lot more than the worthless idiots running in the other parties. You used to be able to depend on the constitution party. No more. They suck, too.

        I’m with Trump. If he’s bad, I will vote against him in 20, assuming we make it there.

        • I too, have a problem with Johnson. When I heard he is in favor of gubermint forcing bakers to bake cakes against their conviction, I almost puked. The first and only agreement libertarians sign on to is to NOT initiate aggression. When gubermint puts a gun to your head and says, “Sie erfuellen”, is that not aggression? If you don’t like what the proprietor offers or doesn’t offer, go to a different store. In the end, the market will prevail. And Johnson’s running mate is no 2nd amendment supporter. Let’s vote for these folks because then we can smoke dope and giggle as the world burns around us.

          My hope is Bernie Sanders gets elected as president because with a socialist as POTUS, he won’t have the support of the demoncratrs or repulsicans and hence, congress will grind to a standstill. As Mark Twain said, “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” With Sanders as POTUS, congress will effectively not be in session. Baring that, Trump may be our best bet.

        • Swamp, you’re exactly right about the LP. The last election cycle I participated in as an LP member was ’96. There were several long-time LP members in play for the nomination, but the LP fatboys wanted Harry Browne, who was a shake’n’bake libertarian.

          Browne lost the straw poll in Delaware, and I’d bet he lost it in most states, but he came out as the winner anyway. Browne was incoherent in his principles, and he had that “looks like a smarmy asshole” look to me.

          I didn’t vote at the convention, mainly because I didn’t attend, but I did (for the first and last time in my voting history) hold my nose and vote for Harry in the national election.

          Harry, of course, performed miserably, even for an LP candidate. He was a droning asshole in every appearance he made, and his almost gay manner of speaking made him the butt of jokes.

          In ’98, I was still nominally an LP member, but I got a mailing from the LP national office asking for support for Browne again in 2000. That pissed me off, having the national office give official support for Browne two years before the election, when there hadn’t even been a primary yet. I just fuckin quit the LP then and there.

          Later, Bumper Hornberger wrote an article on how the LP national was nothing more than a fundraising outfit for presidential elections, and how they awarded contracts to the same gaggle of assholes who lost elections for the LP at every cycle. Bumper left the LP too.

          Since then, the LP has gotten worse.

  32. “What will be the consequence, if we are not able to avail ourselves of the resource in question in its full extent? A nation cannot long exist without revenues. ” – Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 12, referring to tariffs.
    The consequence he foresees actually sounds good to me.

    • “there will be plenty of freaks at the Democratic convention” – but the worst ones will be on the stage.

  33. So what will Trump do with all that authority? He has at least the last 100 years, if not further back as examples of presidential overreach. Sure, he might stop making war in foreign lands, but he wants trade protectionism, and the otherwise peaceful illegal immigrants working and paying taxes in this country he is stating he will deport them.

      • That’s the thing people are forgetting. We know what Hillary will do. It’s bad. No question. We even have eight years of Bill to give us the preview of Hillary, as she had oversized influence as first “lady”. No rolls of the dice at all. We lose. Not even a chance. At all.

        Trump is the trump card. Could he be bad? Very likely he could. But we really don’t know, he may at least not cause so much damage. He is worth the roll of dice because we KNOW what we get with Hillary.

        • Exactly, Rich.

          The stakes are enormous, too. Aside from the wars, if Hillary becomes president, it is a certainty that she will appoint several “justices” who agree with her that we Mundanes have no right to possess weapons; it is very likely she will simply issue a fatwa ordering us to surrender our guns.

          Trump would have to do a complete 180 on views to the contrary he has already expressed.

          And, again: She is a textbook psychopath. Trump is a boor and a narcissist.

          It’s a choice I’m prepared to make.

    • “the otherwise peaceful illegal immigrants working and paying taxes in this country he is stating he will deport them”
      He can say that all he wants, but as a practical matter, it ain’t agonna happen. As much as it is costing us in tax-funded bennies, deportation would cost more, way more. Stop more from coming in, yes, that’s the best we can do. Any that do cause trouble, those we should deport.

      • Hi Phillip,

        No one ever seems to ask: Why wouldn’t they come, given the government’s many tantalizing offers of Free Stuff? Free health care! Free education for their kids! Free EBT – and so on.

        It’s easy to focus on the illegals. Much harder to focus on the thins that motivate them to come here. Because then the whole system would be open for discussion. If it’s wrong for Pedro to get “free” health care and so on, then…

        • Eric – yes, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. The problem with tax-funded benefits for ‘illegals’ is not the illegals, it’s the tax-funded benefits. Of course a few of the States have tried to limit access to said bennies, but the Nazgul have struck them down.

        • eric, more of Trump’s promises with no basis in fact. He wants to build a wall, a stupid idea but a great boondoggle for those who gave to his campaign and have a construction company. He’s going to stop the brown hoard by hook or crook or just with hook and crook.

          He’s playing into people’s righteous indignation of giving money to foreign countries and using Mexico as an excuse. I notice he’s not said anything about cutting foreign subsidy to counties such as Israel or Saudi Arabia both of whom have plenty of people immigrating to the US and a great many of those who have no real means of support other than those fucked up benefits given to foreigners at the expense of those who pay their way.

          But stopping payments to Mexico would only worsen the problem, causing more unemployment there and making illegal immigration from there even more appealing. Even those unemployable would rather be in the US collecting the freebies than starving in Mexico. I’m sure it wouldn’t be a hard choice for me…..putting that shoe on the other foot.

          Less aid to Mexico will easily be eaten by more border scrutiny, the cost of a wall that will only accomplish the lining of certain people’s pockets and even an increase in immigration. The best thing about giving money to Mexico besides helping the economy there is that Mexico isn’t threatening war with anyone, a huge plus for US taxpayers, unlike most other countries we give aid.

          Hitlery would be the worst thing for the whole world, starting with this nation and possibly ending with no nations….or at least no recognizable nations since the nuclear action and reaction would most likely cause huge global weather changes not to mention the unknown cost of lives and infrastructure among other things.

          I like to read some fiction at night to attempt to not think about the upcoming election. I might very well do other things to not think about it if I had the means.

          Hell, let’s talk about cars or strange, almost always a good subject for men and even women who’ll admit it.

    • “…the otherwise peaceful illegal immigrants working and paying taxes in this country…”

      Are you serious?

      Are you at least peripherally aware of what happens at Trump rallies such as Chicago, San Jose, San Diego?

    • Yup, he was one of the first victims. And he was working for them. If that is what you do to people working for you, imagine what she has in store for her enemies, which is everyone who is a regular on this site.

  34. Benghazi! Yes, the 3 killed w/Ambassador Stevens were most likely CIA ‘associates.’ Stevens himself may have been as well. But did they sign up for what they got?

  35. I like a lot of what Trump says. Sure, he could be better on civil liberties issues and whatnot, and he could stand to have a better understanding of his signature issues .. trade, immigration, etc. Do I expect him to do half of what he says he’s going to do? No. Even if he does none of it, if he loses this election, the spirit of America First will be dead for another 20 years or more. It means that hard left authoritarians will have taken the countries political system for good and that there are too many people in this country that want to steal from their neighbor, yell and scream, take away other’s rights, and will vote for a she devil as long as they are promised that their perpetually aggrieved attitudes will be coddled and catered to. It may be time to make a real exit now.

  36. Well said, Eric. Trump is far from ideal, no one seeking the office is, however. Even Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee, thinks bakeries should be forced to provide services to anyone that walks through the door.

    Additionally, Trump has hacked off the environmentalists as well by stating he intends to allow the coal industry to recover. If I were VW I’d be donating to his campaign.

    Trump seems more intent on allowing Liberty for prosperity than bowing to someone else’s religion. Imagine what the price of gas would be if the U.S. military wasn’t the world’s largest consumer…and at what costs to the American People.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

    • “Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee” doesn’t even know the real meaning of libertarianism. He says it’s being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Reminds me of a Democrat friend of mine who say libertarians are just Republicans who smoke dope.

LEAVE A REPLY