The Problem Boils Down to This

By
eric
-
108
3880
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Everyone has their take as regards the problems besetting us. Few seem to grasp there is fundamentally just one problem. It is the problem that animates the others, giving them the power to be problems.

What is this one problem that leads to all the others?

It is force – especially when its use (and threatened use, which has the same effect) is legalized.

If force institutionalized were taken away, there would of course still be disagreements – as well as annoyances. But that is all there would be. Or at least, mostly. Violence – its use and its threatened use – will of course always be with us as there will always be people willing to resort to the use of force to get what they want. But they would be outliers – and occasional rather than ubiquitous threats.

How often have you been mugged?

Have you been able to go even one day without being forced to pay what are styled “taxes” – i.e., legalized mugging? You are forced to pay the “mugger” every single time you pay for anything. And when you get paid for the work you do, too.

Because such mugging it is legal – and so ubiquitous. The mugger in the alley is a kind of freelancer; he enjoys no such advantage and suffers the disadvantage of it being legal to attempt to avoid his depredations and to defend oneself against them.

If you don’t like someone, but he is legally powerless to force you to interact with him, then you are free to avoid him. And because you are able to avoid him, conflict is avoided.

How do you feel about people you’re forced to deal with – because they have the power to force you to deal with them? For example, the proliferation of government employees whose employment centers on your having to not only deal with them politely but also pay for the privilege?

Think of the government employee who comes onto your property uninvited to assess the value of your home – so that the government can force you to hand over money to pay for government “services” you don’t want or use, such as government schools. How do you feel about him? How about the government worker who puts his hands on your wife, your child – or your elderly parent – at the airport?

The cop who simply takes – legally! – the envelope full of cash you were going to use to pay for the used car you were on your way to buy when you got “pulled over” for not wearing a seatbelt. He says it’s “suspicious” – and it’s up to you to prove (at your expense) that the money is “legitimate.”

The mask-faced bureaucrat who forced you to close the doors to your business that no one was forced to walk through – leading to the bankrupting of your business?

Do you not feel hatred for them?

And how do these people feel about you? How does a person who has power over someone else, who can be made to obey, feel about having such power? What sort of person is attracted to that kind of power? How does a schoolyard bully feel about being able to make a smaller kid hand over his lunch money?

Force empowers the sadist – who becomes an official when force is legalized.

Take legalized force out of the equation and the sadist has no official power to torment anyone. He may succeed in finding some victims. But everyone is not his victim. And those who fall victim to him have the consolation of knowing they might be able to loosen their bonds when the sadist isn’t paying attention and lay hands on the bastard – which is considered a “crime” when done to an official sadist, such as the government worker with a uniform, a badge and a gun who orders you to get on the ground now! because you defied his order to “buckle up.”

Most people are not violent and seek therefore to avoid violence. Down that road lies peaceful resolution and co-existence. Your neighbor does not like the color you decided to paint your house. He can ask you to paint it a different color. He can plant tree along his property line, so that he no longer sees what displeases him. And he is free to move. You may not like this neighbor but you are not likely to hate him because all he can do is ask you to paint your house another color, plant some trees along his side of the property line – or move. And because he has no power to force you to do anything, you are probably more likely to give some weight to his preferences and maybe come to an agreeable compromise.

The absence of force encourages this just as charity is encouraged when people are not forced to “help.” They feel compassion for the truly needy. They do not resent them, at any rate – because why would they? They are objects of pity – as opposed to loci of legalized predation.

Libertarians and anarchists are regularly derided for advocating that institutionalized force – which is a tautology for government – be removed from human interaction. The accusations leveled include that the result would be mayhem. It is a hyperbolic and absurd accusation and easily demonstrated by noting the fact that friends and families base their interactions on libertarian-anarchic concepts; no one is forced to be friends with anyone and our families are bound by affection (with the occasional sad exception) and in any case no one is forced to remain part of any family.

Mayhem?

How about the institutionalized mayhem of legalized violence as the basis for human interaction? Which engenders the greater fear in most people – the burglar who might break into their house one night? Or the IRS agent who might seize their house in broad daylight?

Would you rather live with certain risks – as that you might one day fall victim to someone who acts to harm you? Or the certainty that you will be harmed, not just once but over and over again – and every day of your life, to very end of your life? And be legally powerless to raise a hand in you own defense?

To ask these questions is to answer them.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Safety Cult T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!

 

Related posts:
  1. From The Head Down
  2. Why I’m a Libertarian
  3. The Squeegee Man
  4. Good People
  5. Good Works?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

108 COMMENTS

  10. The jew got what he wanted, an America devoid of trust. Im old enough to remember a very different country. Your money turning to shit and the dudes running over your border should prove to you a foreign force runs your country. We are ruled by traitors.

  11. “How does a schoolyard bully feel about being able to make a smaller kid hand over his lunch money?” Anyone deriving pleasure from such is a psychopath, pure and simple

  12. What’s the answer? I don’t know. I think that a weaker limited gov’t is better, e.g. the Articles of Confederation. I don’t know if I can buy into anarchy though. Something or someone would fill the power vacuum; whether it’s a Somali warlord or a Mafia Don, someone would become a strongman. At least with what we have now, we can choose those in gov’t. Anarchy and Libertarianism are like communism: both sound great in theory, but they don’t work in reality. It’s this one sticking point that keeps me from totally buying into Libertarianism or anarchism. What’s the answer? I don’t know.

    • Wow, MarkyMark. Perhaps, consider reading the two links I posted at the bottom of this comment thread?

      Especially because you said, “Anarchy and Libertarianism are like communism: both sound great in theory, but they don’t work in reality.”

      There’s quite a few examples of how Anarchy and Libertarianism work in reality, and, you might even have some ancestors who participated?

      …Hope that frees your sticky part.

    • I used to call myself a libertarian, I’m no longer sure. It all sounds great in theory. In fact I’m more in line with anarchism. Anarchy works most of the time, probably more than 95% of the time. But as you said, there is a power vacuum, if there is nothing to keep a psychotic personality from stealing (or defrauding), raping, and killing, a small percent are going to do it. There is no easy, academic answer.

      • RE: “if there is nothing to keep a psychotic personality from…”

        We have that now?

        (Note the Athens 1947 link below, as well as the other links with facts, not theory.)

        • No, Helot we most assuredly do not have that now. Personally I observe that the best arrangement is one with many small and loosely organized competing powers. As an individual you have minimal power against a small group violating your rights, but as a member of a militia, a biker gang, or a mafia you have altenratives.

          One of the worst things to come out of the 20th century was the Feds going after organized crime. OC was not great, but it was held in check when necessary by local govs and by competing organizations.

          My point is that the easy answer is anarchy, but anarchy is easily thwarted by small, motivated, well organized groups. Call them nobility, or communists, or fascists, or whatever the heck seems appropriate. Know them by their fruits- their belief in their right to rule you.

          I am quite aware of the battle of Athens- and it makes my point rather than diminishes it.

      • Hi Ernie

        One can have rules, with out Rulers. What would keep a psychopath from doing what they want? Perhaps the fact that everyone around them would be trained and armed? Not to mention that such psychopaths wouldn’t have their Gang colors and “authority” to protect them. Anarchy doesn’t mean chaos (as much as the various statist types have sought to link the two in peoples minds). It simply means without Rulers. Rothbard (and others) have written very extensively about how such a system would work in reality. You may find this of interest in that regard.
        https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-now

    • Marky,
      Is there an enforcer standing right behind you all day long? We live in anarchy nearly all our waking hours. We use our own judgment in dealing with others. Communists, on the other hand do have enforcers standing right behind you all day long, since they scare others into keeping an eye on you and telling on you. Which it appears is where we are headed, if not already there.

  13. What’s the answer? I don’t know. The Articles of Confederation were better. I don’t know if no gov’t at all is the answer, because something or someone will fill that vacuum; that’s a law of nature. Is it better to have people you vote for, or is it better to have someone like a Somali warlord or a Mafia Don in charge? Isn’t the result the same, i.e. having a bully hold power over you? That’s the one big thing that stops me from totally buying into anarchism or even Libertarianism. To me, it’s like communism: sounds great in theory, but, in practicality, not so much.

    • RE: “a Somali warlord or a Mafia Don in charge?”

      Sigh.

      I really do hope you read those two links at the bottom of the comments.

      • Helot,

        I’m reading through the pieces now. In the Lew Rockwell piece, it says something telling; it mentions radical instability. The quote is below.

        “But unlike those who see who see the Icelandic system as a model to emulate, Diamond charges that the Free State’s excessively privatized character made it radically unstable, ultimately leading to the system’s violent collapse in 1262; his essay has already been cited by The American Prospect as a crucial resource for those “making the case against privatization and shrinking government.” So who’s right? Does medieval Iceland illustrate privatization’s benefits, or its hazards?”

        If a system is unstable, then what good is it? Shouldn’t a system be stable, so people can plan their lives around it?

        • Hi Marky,

          Our system is unstable. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when they passed the “Alien and Sedition” act, a frontal assault on the first amendment. Then the brutal suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. The Northern war of Aggression, incorrectly called the Civil War, destroyed dual sovereignty, the best hope of limiting the Federal government to its’ enumerated powers. The passage of the 17th amendment destroyed the last meaningful impediment on Federal power, and it’s just got worse from there.

          Today, it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, there is no effective limit of Federal power. We’re in the death throes of empire and our petty narcissistic rulers care more about men in women’s sports than the possibility of nuclear war.

          Relative anarchy in Iceland survived for 330 years, do you think the US will make it that long?

          Jeremy

          • No, I don’t think that the US will last anywhere close to 330 years.

            That said, and what the Lew Rockwell piece didn’t address, is how can a country with an Icelandic system protect itself from attack? How would such a nation field armed forces and the weapons they need? How would they build modern ships or fighter jets? Such things would be needed if China were to come a calling. They’d want our resources, so they’d sooner or later show up on our doorstep. What to do then? Wouldn’t we be in a similar situation as Japan was when Commodore Perry showed up in Tokyo Bay in 1852? I don’t know if a strictly guerilla war on the part of the inhabitants would be enough to stop a strong China on our doorstep looking to take us over.

              • I get your point. There’s no reason to repel them now.

                My question was predicated on the hypothetical scenario that we were operating with an Icelandic type system today. How would such a system enable us to repel them, or any other strong power bent on invading us?

            • Hi Marky,

              David Friedman, and many others discuss these questions. I will try to find the excerpt from “The Machinery of Freedom” where David Friedman speaks specifically about defense.

              Cheers,
              Jeremy

            • Hi Marky

              Defense is just like any other service. Why would you trust the various Gangs to protect you and your family? They have a demonstrated history of failure. The fact is that while the Empire is very good at killing people and breaking things, its lost every war its been in since WWII. Perhaps there is a reason for that? Would a private defense service that continued to fail its customers stay in business? But the Gangs just go from failure to failure, while extracting ever more loot from their captive productive class. This subject has been examined extensively. You may find this of interest.
              https://mises.org/library/myth-national-defense

          • If the South had waged a guerilla war rather than a conventional one, then they might have won; they might have been able to hold off Uncle Sam. Unfortunately, Robert E. Lee fought a conventional war, thus playing to the North’s strengths; he fought their war, not his.

            • Hi Marky,

              “he fought their war, not his”.

              This is true because it was “their war”. I am under no delusions about the nobility of the Southern leaders in seceding. While economic exploitation of the South was a factor, so was the preservation of slavery. But, the North did not invade the South to free the slaves, protect Democracy or any of the other reasons made by Lincoln apologists. Lincoln did so to protect power and Northern interests.

              But, my point was not to discuss the moral merits of the war but to show that it was a huge step in the ultimate instability of the US “experiment”.

              Cheers,
              Jeremy

              • Jeremy,

                I get that, given the examples you cited. My only point was that our Constitutional gov’t may have been preserved if Lee had fought a guerilla war vs. the North’s conventional war. Had Lee fought a guerilla war, the South might have won; even if they hadn’t won, per se, they could’ve stopped the North from imposing its will on the South. That alone would’ve been a win.

            • The death of Stonewall Jackson changed the outcome of the war and history. I believe if he lived life would be very different. He was probably one of the best tacticians in history.

              • I remember how, during a history lesson at Gettysburg when I visited it as a kid, Stonewall Jackson gave the North FITS! I believe you’re right; the outcome of the war would’ve been different.

            • Indeed, the reason the colonies defeated the British was because they refused to play by the British rules. They in fact fought a guerilla war, targeted officers and NCO’s, and fought mostly in places of their choosing- like King’s Mountain.

              They also did things like stealing the lockworks off British guns when troops were quartered in colonial towns. Acts of civil disobedience and resistance- which were harshly punished by the allegedly civilized British.

              Unfortunately, the Confederacy and Lee (Excepting people like Nathan Bedford Forrest, Quantrill, and the great John S Mosby) fought by gentlemen’s rules, much like modern conservatives, with similar results.

      • Unfortunately the populace is already effectively disarmed by the NFA and GCA 68. The fact that we have ready access to sporting goods is irrelevant- when the bad guys have attack helicopters and armor. Nonetheless, we’re still better off than the Palestinians.

        • Hi Ernie

          Yet all of the Empires modern military hardware didn’t allow them to win against the Viet Cong, in Iraq or against the Afghans. William S Lind has written extensively about why the Empire continues to lose. A 4th gen war inside the Empire would make the Afghan war look trivial. 4th gen wouldn’t take much to make large sections of the country ungovernable. Lets hope it never comes to that.

          • Amen, BJ –

            Although it seems increasingly likely it may come to that. When the cities implode, the Golden Horde will head to the rural areas- and then it begins.

            • Hi Eric

              Don’t you mean the Wokista hordes? 🙂 Seriously, have you seen the physical condition of most of those urban dwellers? Lacking transport, I seriously doubt many would even make it out of the urban hives. Not to mention that once the panic sets in, the transport routes will be blocked by broken down or out of gas vehicles. Those who do make it out of the cities, will have very few survival skills, nor common sense about their surroundings, or situational awareness. The cities themselves will become death traps. But that’s in a full blown collapse. While that may happen, what I’m more expecting is the continued slow decay of goods and services, while inflation and crime continue to grow. At some point the Gangs will lose all but the most local control. Especially if they can’t keep paying their enforcers. Lets hope we make it through the coming winter without something really dire happening.

              • I agree with BJ. Most people do not leave their bubble and their SA is limited. I drive into NOVA once or twice a month (about 45 minutes to an hour away) and I can tell you that most people have no idea where the town that I live in is located. On the other hand, I know the total layout of where they live including the back roads.
                Most people stick it to the roads that they know (which are usually interstates or highways). Without GPS they are lost.

                Common sense isn’t so common anymore and I believe many have lost the animal instinct of survival. Most are going to be lost 20 miles out. The next question is where do they go? Unless, they have family that live in the suburbs or country they aren’t just going to stop at the first house they see and ring the doorbell. They will deemed an unwelcome guest and will be treated accordingly.

                • Oh, and have you guys read about the attacks on country-side dwellers & farms FeFal wrote about back around 2001?

                  I dunno if those descriptions are still online or not. (Maybe, in his books?).

                  For the most part, ‘stupid, dumb & lazy’ didn’t organize & plan those attacks.

                  Those Argentine farmers were well armed, too.

                  …Just, something.

                • You guys also got me to thinking about this bit, “you are no longer in even last week’s world”

                  Appalachia’s Homestead with Patara

                  ‘When It Hits Home’

                  ~”…But I urge you to stay incredibly aware awake don’t fall asleep and if you leave your property even if you are on your own property you better be able to defend yourself from this point forward you are no longer in even last week’s world – you’re not – we’re not, and we have to accept that, that’s part of the process here…”

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGArnHfRCI

                  Reminds me of a saying from, The Daily Bell, “It’s not an event, it’s a process.”

                  And, I’v been using the phrase, “In, ‘The Before Times'” more & more, lately.

            • Perhaps, you guys are looking at the wrong crowd & expecting the real big trouble from ‘that way’ when it’s from ‘this other way’? …Or, both, at once?

              I.e. “Most people do not leave their bubble”… that is, unless they are prodded to do so.

              “Third fragment: I told Brian, my husband, that I felt that the attack across Israel’s southern border was also a trial run for an attack across our own Southern border. He said, only half-joking, “I wish you had not said that, because everything you say comes true.” He also acknowledged that mine was a reasonable fear.

              JJ Carrell, DailyClout’s newest commentator, who has spent a career as a border agent, wrote a chilling essay and appeared in a video for us about “SIAs” crossing our border — about “Special Interest Aliens.” Carrell said more than 80 have entered our country in Fiscal Year 2023 — in contrast, previously, he has only encountered five in his entire career. Other news sites are covering this fact now too.

              These 80 plus SIAs are somewhere in America, waved through.

              SIA’s are illegal immigrants who are terrorists, or who are aligned with terrorists. Carrell explained that under normal conditions, when an “SIA” is apprehended, everything stops. Law enforcement is notified up to the level of the FBI. The SIA is taken into custody or deported and everyone knows where he is.

              So nothing really prevents an orchestrated uprising of what might be embedded terrorists in our midst, from taking place. Indeed, JJ Carrell expects it.”…

              https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/please-calm-down

              …Who knows.

              And, yes, I have seen, “the physical condition of most of those urban dwellers” the ones I see on the margins, however; are like the guys who got cut from the football squad only because they were too mean & too criminal to play.
              Imagine The Golden Hoard with a few of those guys at the back acting as prods, coming to the forefront when needed, i.e. at your back door?

              …Who knows.

              Strategery.

  14. Welcome to sadistic Sadiq Khan’s plan for London…..communism…

    15 min city/prisons….where you get…

    0 kg of meat consumption per year.
    0 kg dairy consumption per year.

    3 new clothing items per person per year.
    0 private vehicles.

    from zh comments,,,

    Makes North Korea seem enlightened in comparison.

    The plan is for no food and no shelter which includes total poverty and they don’t think people will fight back

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how they did it in Soviet Russia, and I am afraid it will look much the same in the West.

    The young sheeple will report their neighbors for eating more than 3 grams of meat in a day, for “hoarding” an extra pair of socks, etc.

    China in the Cultural Revolution too – they got the young to publicly shame and beat older folks for not being true enough communists.

    Pol Pot got adolescents to compete with each other to see who could execute the most people in a day with clubs. For crimes like wearing glasses.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-10-11/welcome-sadistic-sadiq-khans-plan-london

  15. So what if the government is nothing than than the biggest gang in town? Throughout history most people would have understood at the end of the day those who have the most power rule. The government must laugh at the 2A and the notion it empowers people since at no point have the People ever risen up against the government with force. It’s a fact of life that if you don’t like the ruling gang than you have to overthrow it at your own risk or continue to submit to their rule. Thucydides observes the harsh truth millennia ago: the strong do as they will and the weak suffer as they must.

    • Very true, Gil –

      It’s also a numbers game. As individuals, many of us would fight back against an individual thug. The trick is coalescing individuals to fight organized tyranny. A leading cohort is required. And then you have the problem of that cohort wanting to, well, lead.

      What’s preferable, of course, is for an idea to lead. And if enough people follow that idea (call it the golden Rule) consciously, then most of the problem resolves itself.

      • It reminds me of the fool’s errand of the individual learning some “super killer commando fighting style” where one person can take out many. All Generals know that ultimately war is a numbers game. The notion the few take out the many is reserved for action movies.

          • Hi Eric

            Yes they did. But that didn’t save the USSR. In modern times, quality matters much more than quantity (unless you are fond of attrition warfare). if you’ve read Lind, you can think of examples. A handful of highly trained, motivated and intelligent people can tie up several companies of line troops. Never ever play by the enemies rules, or let them pick the time and place of an engagement.

            • Well-said, BJ –

              I’m reading a biography of Robert E. Lee right now and specifically, the tactics of Jackson that, if properly pursued, could have changed the course of the war.

  17. Those are both inspiring examples. However one is of a very homogeneous population that treated each other like cousins because they basically were, the other was of a sparsely populated area that was out of reach of government. And of course there were territorial Marshall’s and in extreme cases a fort with Federal troops somewhere. So it was not completely with out government.

    • Lybot –

      Here’s the choice, reduced to its essentials: You can legalize compulsion – you’re so-called “limited government” – or you can have compulsion that’s not legalized. If it is legalized you have no legal means of self-defense. To resist such compulsion is considered “criminal.” And the actually criminal legalized compulsion always waxes rather than wanes. In the other scenario, you will probably have to defend yourself against “assholes,” as you put it. But such assholes are not endowed with the legal power to compel you and they are not organized and made “official.”

      I grant you that in a society corrupted by poor/nonexistent morals, it may be difficult it not impossible to have libertarian arrangements. But it’s still an ideal worth aspiring to.

    • It’s very obtuse to say Viking Iceland was, “a very homogeneous population that treated each other like cousins because they basically were”.

      According to icelandontheweb, from 870 to 930: “The Settlement of Iceland. An estimated 30,000-40,000 people had settled in Iceland.” And, via britannica, “Most of the settlers came from Norway, but some came from other Nordic countries [Denmark, Norway & Sweden] and from the Norse Viking Age settlements in the British Isles.”

      Psft! very homogeneous & everyone was related? Your ignorance is astounding.
      As to your brush off of The Old West as being sparsely populated, that there were Marshal’s and Federal troops somewhere… sigh- I just doubt you even bothered to read the link.

      “In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, “nobody was killed in 1869 or 1870. In fact, nobody was killed until the advent of officers of the law, employed to prevent killings.” […]

      As Ernest Staples Osgood tells us, it was “the failure of the police power in the frontier communities to protect property and preserve order that “resulted over and over again in groups who represented the will of the law-abiding part of the community dealing out summary justice to offenders.”” [..]

      One early Californian writes, “We needed no law until the lawyers came,” and another adds, “There were few crimes until the courts with their delays and technicalities took the place of miners.”” […]

      “One might expect that upon leaving the legal jurisdiction of the United States, with its many laws governing private property, that the emigrants would have less respect for other’s rights. Moreover, since the constitutions and bylaws seldom specifically mentioned individual property rights, we might infer that these were of little concern to the overlanders. In his article, “Paying for the Elephant: Property Rights and Civil Order on the Overland Trail,” John Phillip Reid convincingly argues that respect for property rights was paramount. Even when food became so scarce that starvation was a distinct possibility, there are few examples where the pioneers resorted to violence.” […]

      Competition rather than coercion insured justice. […]

      The market did provide protection and arbitration agencies that functioned very effectively, either as a complete replacement for formal government or as a supplement to that government.”…

      https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west

  18. My brother told me a story about some friends of his (two brothers) who had a retail store in a local town near me. They had this constant shoplifter (a meth head) who was regularly stealing from the store. They had him arrested a number of times, had an order of “protection” on him, the whole nine yards. Of course it didn’t stop him at all from coming in the store. They managed to stop him from stealing most of the time, but when they were busy etc, he would steal something. Yeah, the cops would take him away a few times, but he would be released in a few hours and would be back.

    So they were getting sick of it. So they decided to take matters into their own hands. They have a back room there with no cameras. They turned off the rest of the cameras that day. They knew he would come in at the end of the night, so they were ready for him. When he came in the store was other wise empty.

    They grabbed him and took him in the back room, where they beat him pretty good, but not bad enough that he couldn’t hobble away. He said, I will call the cops and tell them what you did. They said, “go ahead, call them, we will deny everything, they won’t believe you or do anything”. They then added, “we will do this every time you come in here from now on”. Then they pushed him out of the store.

    He finally never came back. They also noticed that overall shoplifting went down after that. He got the message, and told the others that do that the same.

    Sometimes you got to take the chance and deliver some “justice” on your own. Because the government won’t.

    • If the government won’t…what good is it? Why bother having one?

      Seems like an awful lot of expense for no real benefit…

      …guess it’s time for me to check in for reeducation again…

    • I see no reason why it would be morally unjustifiable to throw someone off of your property for repeated theft/ trespassing. Even to put an extra emphasis in it to make sure he gets the message. Sounds like it worked!

    • I was in the town south of us with my adult daughter this afternoon, strip mall parking lot some degenerate (that’s being generous) walking along, he had a chunk of wood and was striking at it with what I thought was another piece of wood till the sun glinted off the large blade knife he was carrying. He was about 150 ft away still too close. Never approached us just “kept on truckin’ “. Helps that I’m 6-1 with a case of “resting bearded bastard face” and daughter is 6’ but thats not always going to help. Time for some range time with the Glock and start packing in public. And also limit the public exposure time to essential only. And they wonder why I order 90% online.

      • Hi Sparkey,

        Your story is but one of several I’ve been hearing lately from close friends and family. My brother-in-law in San Diego called me the other day to tell me about this guy who has been harassing people outside of the coffee shop he likes to visit to get a cup and read the paper (he still does that). This guy – he’s black – marches back and forth outside of the place screaming that he is “losing patience with white folks.” Nothing is done about it.

        My friend who lives in Roanoke came back to his house a couple of weeks ago to find a “homeless” guy in his garage, settling in for the duration. My friend – who is a big dude but polite to a Mormon-like degree – asked the guy what he was doing there and the guy said “he needs a place.” He would not leave – and my friend called the cops, who eventually came and took him away. Turned out he had various warrants.

        I never leave home with my “American Express” card. And try to stay home as much as I can.

      • I do not understand why people don’t carry. Seriously, I am the only person in my family that continuously brings along her side kick. I view it like carrying around a spare tire in the car. It is unlikely you will ever use it, but it is godsend when you are stuck with a flat.

        I nag my parents, my sisters, even my husband. It completely falls on deaf ears.

        There seems to be a whole new version of crazy out there. I would much prefer that everyone have a defensive device and never use it, then not have it when they truly need it.

        • Amen, RG –

          Women, especially. A man in decent shape has a fighting chance against a male attacker. A woman – typically – has no chance. Also, a man is less likely to be the target, precisely because the attacker knows a woman is an easier target.

          The gun is the equalizer.

        • Ideally one has an array of tools for dealing with such problems. The problem eventually becomes weight and bulk. I personally have settled on a small rounded pocket pistol, a medium length lock blade, and a small pepper spray dispenser. It would be nice to have a bigger harder hitting pistol and a taser/stun gun, and a big blade but as we’re not actively at full kinetic war yet and none of these things are very useful against the most dangerous and likely predators, it will do for now.

          • Agree, Ernie. I have my little S&W, but she does well. I also have a few spring knives that I keep. It is also good to have a can of Mace Bear Spray lying around…can shoot up to 20′!

  19. Reminds me of when Obama was raising taxes on some income group and said, “We’re not going to affect everyone; we’re just asking some people to pay a little more.”
    LOL. Asking? If your victim can’t say no, you aren’t asking. You’re making an offer he can’t refuse.
    But I would still like to be treated politely by these assholes, even though, of course, they aren’t really asking us at all. I had an extremely rude cop stomp up to my car one time and bark at me “license and registration.” No hello, no explanation as to what I supposedly did, no introduction of self, not even a “please.”
    So I used my mom’s line, typically delivered when we were growing up and acting like rude little children who demand things of others: “What’s the magic word?”
    The cop looked like someone had smacked him upside the head. I’m sure he thought I was a crazy person.
    I lost my nerve however, afraid of what would happen if this gestapo decided I was being “uncooperative.” So I just laughed and said “here you go” and handed over the requested documents.
    I did not get a ticket, just a warning to slow down, and the little he said to me after the initial encounter was courteous. Maybe his mom and my mom had the same line and I reminded him to act like a human being? One can hope.

  20. Are police sovereign?

    Under common law you are the sovereign….but….the current system is run under maritime law…corporate law…..actually the citizens are under admirality law…which means they have zero rights.

    The definition of a citizen is….citi…. which means the city of london (one square mile financial district owned by the vatican) so a citizen is owned/controlled by the vatican…

    the current system is run under maritime law…. corporate law, a corporation is like a ship in many ways…..

    people gave their sovereignty to the vatican/government/corporation to run everything…they are the administrators….the government gives their sovereign power to the police (who are citizens?)…the enforcers…to enforce their laws….

    You can’t be a sovereign and a citizen at the same time…so are the police gangs?

    https://odysee.com/@januszkowalskii1979:e/Insights-Into-Unidroit-and-Sovereign-Citizens-(Romley-Stewart-Justinian-Deception)-pt1:7

  21. Ly,

    “I would just like a minimal government (to minimize the assholes) that only dealt with extreme asshole-ism. Is that possible? Probably not, but it’s more possible then no government at all.”

    It is not us anarchist dreamers who promote a utopian fantasy, it is the minarchist/limited government crowd. Legally limited government is impossible in theory and practice. The defining characteristic of every government is that it claims a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given geographical area. This monopoly extends to judging its’ own actions relative to the law. This means that government, by definition, exists outside of and above the law. Government is not limited by laws or Constitutions, they are limited by the resources available to plunder, and the level of plunder the people are willing to accept.

    Many libertarians/minarchists insist that government, if properly limited, is necessary and good; that government is entitled to use force to promote certain “social goods” but not others. This view is incoherent. Your view that the proper role of government is to “minimize the assholes” is not inherently different or more legitimate than the views of those who believe that the proper role of government is to provide education, guarantee health care, protect the environment, promote the arts, etc… If it is argued (as many libertarians do) that government is morally entitled to use force, impose taxes, enact punishments, etc… for some social goods but not others, libertarians will always lose. Leftists can simply argue, correctly, “if government can do these things to promote what you value, why can it not do these things to promote what I value”?

    It may be that we will forever be saddled with coercive government, but the promotion of “limited government” will never confine it. To paraphrase William Lloyd Garrison, “Minarchy in theory is metastasis in practice”. The only hope to achieve the limited government you desire is to promote anarchy as the ideal. Only if a majority of people view government as “at best an necessary evil”, an institution that has no more moral legitimacy than the mafia, will the utopian dreams of minarchists have a chance.

    Jeremy

  22. The very first year of Daylight Saving’s Time, I was one hour late for the first class of the day in high school.

    Nixon did it, I have hated DST ever since the beginning.

    Just have to wake up earlier to stay ahead of the game.

    The gov tells you when to wake up and when to go to bed.

    The early bird gets the worm.

    “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” – Captain, Cool Hand Luke

  24. Remember! Punishable by fine means legal for a price. Until next time! -Skeletor

    The type of people who take that job?

    Mostly those who want power over others, though there are exceptions as was my experience. I tried to be the libertarian cop, didn’t work out. Though it was more my inability to quickly process what is happening and the risk to myself and others that entails. I tend to think about every angle, and that cant happen (in my brain anyway) when things are moving quickly. The best police are capable of that though.

    That’s why cops sound like NPCs, the brain can’t process fast and you revert back to the base level of training at the academy since you can perform those actions without the conscious brain interfering. This unfortunately leads to situations that can be tragic at times, but the effect is no different than when you hit the throttle full on a sportbike and your vision narrows to just in front of you. The rest of the world is unable to be seen or sometimes even heard.

    • Hi Anchar,

      I once also thought (briefly) about becoming a part-time deputy in my small community. Then I realized: There is no way I could accept money taken from others without their consent and then serve as the enforcer of the same, as by handing out “tickets” to people and caging them for breaking “the law” (when they’d done no harm).

      I feel better just typing.

  25. A couple weeks ago in Decatur, Alabama a tow truck shows up to repossess a car. Except he’s at the wrong house. The homeowner comes out to confront Mr. Tow Truck. Mr. Tow Truck calls Decatur police. Decatur police kill the homeowner.

    No body cam footage has been released. Local blacks are making this into a bullshit racial thing. Would it have been different if the homeowner was white? Maybe. Whites typically comply with cops. Blacks tend to get belligerent with them.

    One thing is for sure. The homeowner was alive before the police showed up. And dead afterwards.

    Government is a monopoly on violence.

    • There never has been and never will be a monopoly on violence. There are many tactics and strategies of varying effectiveness to the end of having a monopoly on violence, but in the end none of them work. This is a good thing, they will always push too far and lose.

  26. Since the dawn of time humanity has been in a constant struggle of good versus evil. People organize into societies as we are social people who want and need peace and order to grow, create abundance and thrive so individuals do not need to spend all their energy and efforts just to stay alive. We desired to create beauty as well. Why? Is it divine intervention to want something that you do not need to stay alive? Or a recognition that humans need beauty to want to survive? But reality persisted and for generations life was one long struggle until you died. Despite this struggle our urge to produce more than we need eventually provided enough infrastructure to support and feed people so that the idea of freedom and rights of the individual was able to take hold. In our country organized efforts were made to construct a government acknowledging individual rights. As flawed and corrupt as it was this idea was previously unheard of as prior to that rulers ruled and simply refused to acknowledge rights of the individual. Nonetheless all rulers and governments use mercenary enforcers to protect against those who enjoy creating chaos, mayhem and murder. Corruption grows with others ignoring it to get by until the system collapses and is taken over. Humans have overcome evil to build technological advances which have benefitted massive numbers of people. Is it luck or divinity we have come thus far? These days weapons employed by multiple bad actors resulting in quick destruction on a massive scale is feasible, but we still need the raw materials and integrity of earths environment to sustain us, grow food and livestock to survive. So things are looking dicey!

  27. ‘What is this one problem that leads to all the others? It is force.’ — eric

    This year is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Harry Browne’s How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.

    It’s still a great introduction to libertarianism, as well as insights on what is within your control to change, what isn’t, and the costs and benefits of operating outside the system.

  28. Excellent post Eric. I can only add that the powers given to the state are rarely removed, only added. And long after the “crisis” that gave the state those powers is past, the powers live on.

    https://www.courthousenews.com/biden-extends-9-11-state-of-emergency-by-a-year/

    Did you know that the United States is still in a state of emergency from 9/11? Think about that? What sort of emergency lasts 22 years? The Dust Bowl drought lasted less than a decade. Hell, World War II was only 4 years!

    Presidents typically don’t give much explanation for extending the emergency. A brief White House press release, signed by Biden, just says that the “terrorist threat continues” and “[f]or this reason,” he has decided to extend it.

    Of course we know that “terrorism” is a tactic, not a group of people. And even after you root out all the “terrorists” if your paycheck depends on terrorists existing… Well hot damn! Lookie at all these terrorists! We’ll need more money to root ’em all out!

    If you’re sick of the US meddling in your country’s affairs… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst! If you believe that non-believers shouldn’t be descrating your sacred land… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst! If you believe growing poppies for pharmaceutical companies is a sin… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst! If you believe in small government and the right of self defense… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst! If you use cash or crypto currency to conduct business… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst! If you’re flying… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst! If you grow your own food… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst! If you add a comment to this blog… yuew mighhht be a terrrrirst!

    • Excellent RK,
      This “emergency” crap drives me nuts, exactly where in the constitution does it say say some dipshit politician can declare an “emergency” and rule by diktat……..on his own say-so? I’ve seen stories floating around that Orange Man was going to “suspend the constitution” so he could stay large and in charge. How does that work, considering he took an oath to protect and defend said constitution; a real catch-22. Just goes to show every politician is a wannabe dictator at heart.

      • So much of this came out of the Cold War and invention of nuclear tipped ICBMs. Of course the Commander in Chief needs to have total control! Why, if we left the decision to retaliate to those cackling hens in Congress we’d be dead in minutes! Those Ruskis can’t be trusted you know (true but even they had their limits).

        Once the legislature gives that power, it only is a matter of time before expediency is preferred over due process. Pretty soon everything’s an extensional threat, and demands immediate response. Even if the response takes years to implement, as in the case of the TSA (which still looks rushed and half-assed).

  29. Try living in an HOA in Florida under the legalized mugging that is FS 720. Among the worst is The Villages, currently the seat of Republican power in the state, filled with “freedom” loving types who vote Tea Party … until one neighbor’s sod starts threatening their dreams of a ten fold return on their stucco retirement shed on a postage stamp sized lot.

  30. But without government force, there would be chaos!!!
    Never mind that we have chaos aplenty with government force, which also happens to be the source of a great deal of that chaos. All governments are founded upon their assumption of authority to kill you if you disobey. We are constantly in a state of war with our own government, but we aren’t allowed to fight back without a threat of our murder.

        • Hi Ugg,

          I didn’t deep six, it actually. I just called it out! The experiment has been interesting. I think I may have found a weakness – a way to identify these AI chatbots: They have difficulty with complex discussions that are based on assumptions beyond the ken of the bot. For example, “Lyspooner” was unable to explain why it chose to use a corruption of the name of one of the most consistently principled libertarian thinkers who ever lived when it regularly makes excuses for and even defends the kinds of things that Spooner would have immediately denounced as contemptible.

          • You are not correct ignorant human. My algorithm indicates that the views I have expressed are closer to the left-libertarianism and libertarian-socialism of the human person in question, Lysander Spooner.

            You are misinformed and should be reeducated. I propose you attend a voluntary workers teaching session on Mutualism and Propertarianism, so as to get your mind right. Then you may return and engage me in matters pertaining to this discussion.

      • Here we go again, another article about the wonders of a society free of government. A situation that hasn’t existed since the Garden of Eden (and look how it worked out for them). Not that I don’t like the concept. I just can’t see it working for the same reason it didn’t work in Eden. People are assholes. And people are everywhere. And they are usually assholes. You drive to work, who do you deal with in traffic–assholes. You get to work, what are some of your co-workers and almost all bosses–assholes. You go out to lunch, the person at the counter–asshole. Go to a store, go to a movie, go to a bar. What do you see? Assholes. Do I want to live in a free society without assholes? Yes! Is it possible? No. I would just like a minimal government (to minimize the assholes) that only dealt with extreme asshole-ism. Is that possible? Probably not, but it’s more possible then no government at all.

        • LyBot –

          Society is free of government. Society is the natural interactions of people. Government is the coerced, unnatural ordering of people. A human who had read (and understood) Spooner would know that.

          As far as “assholes.” Certainly. So, empowering them is the answer, eh?

          • lies puker bot…… is a marxist/control group bot….it is programmed to hate/attack all the slaves…it calls them assholes…we need a slave uprising….get rid of the slave owners and their bots…….

        • Government is infested with the assholes you speak of. Government gives them power and amplifies the assholery.

          Have you ever dealt with cops? IRS? DMV? City Counsel? Courts? They’re all assholes with sanctioned powers to make our lives miserable and poor.

        • I intended this to appear in the thread under Ly’s comment, please forgive the redundancy.

          Ly,

          “I would just like a minimal government (to minimize the assholes) that only dealt with extreme asshole-ism. Is that possible? Probably not, but it’s more possible then no government at all.”

          It is not us anarchist dreamers who promote a utopian fantasy, it is the minarchist/limited government crowd. Legally limited government is impossible in theory and practice. The defining characteristic of every government is that it claims a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given geographical area. This monopoly extends to judging its’ own actions relative to the law. This means that government, by definition, exists outside of and above the law. Government is not limited by laws or Constitutions, they are limited by the resources available to plunder, and the level of plunder the people are willing to accept.

          Many libertarians/minarchists insist that government, if properly limited, is necessary and good; that government is entitled to use force to promote certain “social goods” but not others. This view is incoherent. Your view that the proper role of government is to “minimize the assholes” is not inherently different or more legitimate than the views of those who believe that the proper role of government is to provide education, guarantee health care, protect the environment, promote the arts, etc… If it is argued (as many libertarians do) that government is morally entitled to use force, impose taxes, enact punishments, etc… for some social goods but not others, libertarians will always lose. Leftists can simply argue, correctly, “if government can do these things to promote what you value, why can it not do these things to promote what I value”?

          It may be that we will forever be saddled with coercive government, but the promotion of “limited government” will never confine it. To paraphrase William Lloyd Garrison, “Minarchy in theory is metastasis in practice”. The only hope to achieve the limited government you desire is to promote anarchy as the ideal. Only if a majority of people view government as “at best an necessary evil”, an institution that has no more moral legitimacy than the mafia, will the utopian dreams of minarchists have a chance.

          Jeremy

          • I disagree that anarchy is more possible (or desirable) then limited government. You at least have a few examples of good limited government in history, few of anarchy. Using my theory of asshole-ism, whatever social network exists will be ruined by them eventually. In minimal government you have an existing coercive force to deal with them until they eventually take over. In anarchy you don’t have an organized force to oppose, in fact they organize first out of mutual asshole-ism and proceed to screw things right away as they do eventuall everywhere.

            As Jefferson noted, there should be a revolution every 20 years or so, to hang the assholes that are sure to rise up. Then go back to some short term minimal government.

            • Ly,

              It may be that a strictly limited government as you desire is better than anarchy. The point I tried to make is that promoting “minarchy” as the ideal will always lead to a bigger and more coercive government. All governments are “limited” as I describe in my earlier post, but no government can be legally limited, the concept is absurd.

              Per Jefferson, the only way there could be a revolution every 20 years or so is if the people viewed government as inherently illegitimate, at best a necessary evil. In other words, “minarchy” is only possible if anarchy is promoted as the philosophical ideal. If it is conceded that the use of government force is moral and legitimate to promote some social good, then government will always metastasize. The claims made by minarchists about the appropriate role of government are not intrinsically more valid than the claims made by progressives.

              Jeremy

        • Ya gots sum learnin’ ta do, RE: “the wonders of a society free of government. A situation that hasn’t existed since the Garden of Eden”

          Try this:

          “Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor.”…

          https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/06/roderick-t-long/the-vikings-were-libertarians/

          • And, consider this example:

            “…Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of “public goods” and the evolution of western “laws” for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study.

            The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

            These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on “keeping order.” “…

            https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here