The 24 Types of Libertarian

Johnnyorganic · Sep 21, 2010

hanimmal said:
Nobody wants to really see taxes raised, but the problem is there are three ways really at this point,

1. Go with obamas plan, which keeps the taxes at the same low rate for most of The public and 98% of small businesses.
2. Fight doing anything at which point the taxes increase a large amount for all the tax base in a recession.
3. Put taxes at the same rate for the next 2 years at which point Obama is faced with this right at his election, and going to be forced at that point to increase the taxes because we will be out of this mess and in the process of paying for it.

It's win win for republicans, and pretty much all lose for Obama.

Rural areas have many small businesses and independent workers. Today we really rely heavily on tech and communication, with a shitty broadband setup it stagnates the opportunities for those people. It's hard to run business today without good Internet service.

Btw not that this matters to anyone, but thank you. You guys are having a great back and forth, much more interesting than any network news channel.

Your first statement cheers me, Han. I wish I could believe it were true for all Progressive Democrats.

Option one is no good option.

And those numbers are flawed. 98% of small business will not be spared by the Obama Tax Increase, try 52%.

That 3% (you say 2%, Pelosi says 3%) figure is based on deceptive use of the numbers. The Democrats are counting all pass-through business income. Which means that if you sell a used car, or sell your GI Joe collection on Ebay, the Democrats count you as a small business. It's dishonest.

The increase will affect, 48% of small business because in a sole proprietorship, the business income is counted as personal income.

The second option has an outside chance. It was mentioned by John Boehner as a possibility and he was crucified over his comments last week. So who knows?

The third possible out come would be acceptable as a compromise.

60% of a survey of 31 prominent economists favor it.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

And as I stated previously, if there were a demand for rural broadband service, the industry would already be providing it.

hanimmal · Sep 21, 2010

Yeah I agree, people tend to just listen and parrot their parties views on things that affect the economy. Thaw a good graph, 70% of the economists are in favor of tax breaks (even if some are saying to not extend it for the top tiers too, it's hard to deny that they are not dealing with the same struggles as the middle class and under).

Good stuff about the 3% too, I know better than to just run with numbers I hear from politicians, than you for calling me out on it. That is interesting to see that they included e-bayers and the like.

The only businesses that would be affected by this would be ones that make more than 250 or so though right? And even then it would be an increase of about 3% tax from every dollar they earn over that amount, not on the total amount. I don't see anyone saying that they will not try to earn another dollar due to the government taking out 3 more cents(which is the same amount they took out in the nineties that was the entire plan all along with the tax cuts expiring).

Even with that I would not like to see taxes increase in a recession (DANGER). It just blows they set up the Obama with this, unless you're against Obama then it would be genius.

medicineman · Sep 21, 2010

undertheice said:
a corporation should have no more right to despoil the environment or abuse its workers than an individual, but it should have no less rights either. the legal mumbo jumbo that imparts the rights of an individual to a corporation as a protection to its shareholders also demands of it the same responsibilities.

In theory maybe. But if you really take an in depth look at corporate behavior, You'll find much more irresponsibility than should be allowed. Money talks and..........................We need rules and the means of enforcement. Corporations are not good at policing themselves. Would it cost a little more for the wiget, would the shareholders make a little less, maybe, but the good will and results of being a good "citizen" would bode the corporation well.

Johnnyorganic · Sep 21, 2010

hanimmal said:
Yeah I agree, people tend to just listen and parrot their parties views on things that affect the economy. Thaw a good graph, 70% of the economists are in favor of tax breaks (even if some are saying to not extend it for the top tiers too, it's hard to deny that they are not dealing with the same struggles as the middle class and under).

Good stuff about the 3% too, I know better than to just run with numbers I hear from politicians, than you for calling me out on it. That is interesting to see that they included e-bayers and the like.

The only businesses that would be affected by this would be ones that make more than 250 or so though right? And even then it would be an increase of about 3% tax from every dollar they earn over that amount, not on the total amount. I don't see anyone saying that they will not try to earn another dollar due to the government taking out 3 more cents(which is the same amount they took out in the nineties that was the entire plan all along with the tax cuts expiring).

Even with that I would not like to see taxes increase in a recession (DANGER). It just blows they set up the Obama with this, unless you're against Obama then it would be genius.

Here's a link to an essay which explains the 48% thing better than I can. I was riffing off of memory and should have included a link in my post since I did cite some of their numbers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html?mod=WSJ_article_related

And yes, you are correct that only businesses earning more than $200k (for a single filer) and $250k (for a couple) would be affected. Translating to just under half (48%) of small businesses.

It's just bad timing. I'm sure that the Democrats who insisted on the time limits back in in the early years of the Bush Era did not imagine it would come back to haunt them the way it has.

Another bittersweet example of unintended consequences.

And ironic that Democrats now are open to extending them considering the beating Bush was subjected to throughout the years for 'tax cuts for the rich.'

medicineman · Sep 21, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
Here's a link to an essay which explains the 48% thing better than I can. I was riffing off of memory and should have included a link in my post since I did cite some of their numbers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html?mod=WSJ_article_related

And yes, you are correct that only businesses earning more than $200k (for a single filer) and $250k (for a couple) would be affected. Translating to just under half (48%) of small businesses.

It's just bad timing. I'm sure that the Democrats who insisted on the time limits back in in the early years of the Bush Era did not imagine it would come back to haunt them the way it has.

Another bittersweet example of unintended consequences.

And ironic that Democrats now are open to extending them considering the beating Bush was subjected to throughout the years for 'tax cuts for the rich.'

I certainly hope you are wrong. Just think, what we don't hear is the fact that, guess what, those same tax cuts have been in effect for the last 7 years. Where are all the jobs? The ones the republicans claim will be created by extending the cuts. The Tax cuts for the rich only did one thing, made the rich richer.

Johnnyorganic · Sep 21, 2010

medicineman said:
I certainly hope you are wrong. Just think, what we don't hear is the fact that, guess what, those same tax cuts have been in effect for the last 7 years. Where are all the jobs? The ones the republicans claim will be created by extending the cuts. The Tax cuts for the rich only did one thing, made the rich richer.

Maybe Bush inherited a worse situation than he thought at first. :mrgreen:

Or maybe unemployment was relatively low and very manageable - it was; until after the Democrats took over both Houses of Congress in the election of 2006. In fact unemployment did not spike until 2009.

But I never heard him whine about it....

And whine.

And whine.

And so on.

And so forth.

...like the Big O does.

hanimmal · Sep 21, 2010

Nah I really think Bush was screwed after 9/11, the markets were seriously hit after that happened and it was pretty bad.

Here is a look at the UE:

It took a while to come back down after it. The Federal reserve was able to keep this one in control because interest rates were actually not at zero so they had some wiggle room to boost the economy and war spending also notched up helping for a while. The problem was they were not keeping an eye on the secondary (non-bank (that are under the watch of the FED) financial institutions) markets and the housing boom was not slowed with enough increasing rates (maybe because the adjustable rate mortgages would have caused a worse crash?), and there was not much they could do to bring this around quick enough.

And also when you look at unemployment it is better to look at them in respect to the non-farm payrolls. It tells a better story about what is happening. Unemployment is a lagging indicator:

There has been a lot of hiring since April 09 after the stimulus was passed. It just takes a loong time for unemployment numbers to change much.

And Bush didn't need to whine about the recession, he went a different route and ginned everyone up on wars and terrorists. I wonder how many times Obama has used war or terrorist references vs Bush.

Johnnyorganic · Sep 21, 2010

hanimmal said:
Nah I really think Bush was screwed after 9/11, the markets were seriously hit after that happened and it was pretty bad.

Here is a look at the UE:
It took a while to come back down after it. The Federal reserve was able to keep this one in control because interest rates were actually not at zero so they had some wiggle room to boost the economy and war spending also notched up helping for a while. The problem was they were not keeping an eye on the secondary (non-bank (that are under the watch of the FED) financial institutions) markets and the housing boom was not slowed with enough increasing rates (maybe because the adjustable rate mortgages would have caused a worse crash?), and there was not much they could do to bring this around quick enough.

And also when you look at unemployment it is better to look at them in respect to the non-farm payrolls. It tells a better story about what is happening. Unemployment is a lagging indicator:

There has been a lot of hiring since April 09 after the stimulus was passed. It just takes a loong time for unemployment numbers to change much.

And Bush didn't need to whine about the recession, he went a different route and ginned everyone up on wars and terrorists. I wonder how many times Obama has used war or terrorist references vs Bush.

Actually I was joking about the inheritance thing. That was just another bitch-slap for the Community Organizer.

Bush became President. Shit happened. Bush responded. He did a few things right. He fucked a lot of shit up.

And you are right, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Which is precisely why I made note of which party took over both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections.

Again, you are right. It was not the regulations (or lack thereof) that were the problem. It was the regulators falling down on the job.

Funny I frequently hear, from other members, that worn out canard about deregulation causing the crash. But I never, ever, hear a mention of [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. [/FONT]http://www.soxlaw.com/

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Which by the way, was upheld by that corporation-loving Supreme Court on June 29th of this year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062804983.html

An act which heaped new regulations on corporate accounting and reporting practices. It made it harder for American companies to compete with Foreign based companies, and did not work as it was intended.

There was a lot of hiring. A lot of people are underemployed. There was a lot of firing, too. Otherwise the unemployment data would look somewhat different.
[/FONT]

hanimmal · Sep 21, 2010

It's funny I have heard a lot about the sarbanes oxley act, but in more favorable light. With investing making sure the info you get is true is key. One of the big things is CEOs and CFOs are held accountable for the accounting mistakes (unlike before enron) so it makes investing safer. But that's an interesting take you have.

But I would think that doing accounting correct is not as costly as they would want you to believe and if the moved it was more because they didn't want to be held accountable for creative accounting / mistakes.

Seriously if you feel like making your eyes hurt there is a ton of great info on how and where this panic started. Basically in the large shadow banks that figured out how to make a shit load on loopholes in the Freddie fannie laws. The deregulation started decades ago (with good intentions regan got the ball rolling in 87 I believe it was).

Once the fed started to increase rates and people started to default on mortgages the investors who had millions in the shadow banks started to withdraw their millions in deposits from them and it created what was essentially a massive bank run seizing the market, because things like payroll for large companies depend on those overnight loans.

But really this is just a symptom IMO. I think we really need to get our workers more productive as a whole, we are becoming obsolete. We no longer need fifty people to do jobs it takes 3 or 4 to do. But we still need to get the other 46 or so new careers. And without improving their skills we are the same as the next laborer, which means we are replaceable at the drop of a dime.

Blah blah, sorry I get long winded, I love this stuff.

Johnnyorganic · Sep 21, 2010

hanimmal said:
It's funny I have heard a lot about the sarbanes oxley act, but in more favorable light. With investing making sure the info you get is true is key. One of the big things is CEOs and CFOs are held accountable for the accounting mistakes (unlike before enron) so it makes investing safer. But that's an interesting take you have.

But I would think that doing accounting correct is not as costly as they would want you to believe and if the moved it was more because they didn't want to be held accountable for creative accounting / mistakes.

Seriously if you feel like making your eyes hurt there is a ton of great info on how and where this panic started. Basically in the large shadow banks that figured out how to make a shit load on loopholes in the Freddie fannie laws. The deregulation started decades ago (with good intentions regan got the ball rolling in 87 I believe it was).

Once the fed started to increase rates and people started to default on mortgages the investors who had millions in the shadow banks started to withdraw their millions in deposits from them and it created what was essentially a massive bank run seizing the market, because things like payroll for large companies depend on those overnight loans.

But really this is just a symptom IMO. I think we really need to get our workers more productive as a whole, we are becoming obsolete. We no longer need fifty people to do jobs it takes 3 or 4 to do. But we still need to get the other 46 or so new careers. And without improving their skills we are the same as the next laborer, which means we are replaceable at the drop of a dime.

Blah blah, sorry I get long winded, I love this stuff.

I think we agree more than we disagree here, Han. Always a good thing.

SarBox, as it is called, was a huge law passed as a response to train wrecks like MCI/Worldcom and Enron. And like most bills birthed under such circumstances it did some good, but it also had some of those unintended consequences I mentioned earlier. It did have a major effect on accounting practices because now there is the possibility of prison time, not just fines. That is new.

And you are absolutely correct about the Housing crash. The banking interests misbehaved. But I would take it a step further and add they were encouraged to do so by flawed government policy borne of noble intentions.

But sometimes things just don't work out the way we think they should. Did you know that the introduction of padded boxing gloves substantially increased the incidences of serious brain damage among boxers?

Rob Roy · Sep 23, 2010

The single biggest stimulus to the economy would be to repeal taxes and shut government down. When there is an infestation of parasites you don't bring in more cock roaches, you get rid of them. Even government gets this when they offer "tax free" shopping days.

Government produces nothing good, but it does demand restrictions on natural rights, cause war and act as a vessel to funnel money against your will. The least restricted market if it is allowed to exist, is the best. Time has proven that and will again. Forced collectives cannot produce good, they are flawed from their very beginning. This will eventually become common knowledge, much like the earth isn't flat. There will be people that will deny this, but eventually there will be a voluntary society or none at all. I have a 50 trillion dollar Zimbabwe note I'm willing to wager on it!

Johnnyorganic · Sep 23, 2010

Rob Roy said:
The single biggest stimulus to the economy would be to repeal taxes and shut government down. When there is an infestation of parasites you don't bring in more cock roaches, you get rid of them. Even government gets this when they offer "tax free" shopping days.

Government produces nothing good, but it does demand restrictions on natural rights, cause war and act as a vessel to funnel money against your will. The least restricted market if it is allowed to exist, is the best. Time has proven that and will again. Forced collectives cannot produce good, they are flawed from their very beginning. This will eventually become common knowledge, much like the earth isn't flat. There will be people that will deny this, but eventually there will be a voluntary society or none at all. I have a 50 trillion dollar Zimbabwe note I'm willing to wager on it!

Anarchy is not the answer.

Anarchy is a temporary state which inevitably results in a worse, meaning a far more restrictive, system than the one it was meant to correct. The masses would look to the Devil himself, beg him, to free them from the horrors of anarchy.

The solution is limited government. A Federal government restrained by the limits set forth in the Constitution. Federalism has worked before, for a short time; eighty years or so. But a Constitutional Republic requires eternal vigilance.

But whatever else freedom represents, it also means free to fail; which frightens many people who cling to the security of the nanny state.

BudMcLovin · Sep 23, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
The solution is limited government. A Federal government restrained by the limits set forth in the Constitution. Federalism has worked before, for a short time; eighty years or so. But a Constitutional Republic requires eternal vigilance.

Taken from Federalist Paper 51 by James Madison. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

The republic took a big hit with the enactment of the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). Since then the states have had no representation in Washington removing a very important check on the federal government.

BudMcLovin · Sep 23, 2010

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free". Ronald Reagan

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33739.html

Johnnyorganic · Sep 23, 2010

BudMcLovin said:
The republic took a big hit with the enactment of the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). Since then the states have had no representation in Washington removing a very important check on the federal government.

That is correct. Up until then the House of Representative represented the people and the Senate Represented the state. Senators became the same as representatives.

Now no official body protects the rights of the individual states.

Rob Roy · Sep 25, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
Anarchy is not the answer.

Anarchy is a temporary state which inevitably results in a worse, meaning a far more restrictive, system than the one it was meant to correct. The masses would look to the Devil himself, beg him, to free them from the horrors of anarchy.

The solution is limited government. A Federal government restrained by the limits set forth in the Constitution. Federalism has worked before, for a short time; eighty years or so. But a Constitutional Republic requires eternal vigilance.

But whatever else freedom represents, it also means free to fail; which frightens many people who cling to the security of the nanny state.

Hello Johnny. How many governments have ever remained "limited"? The problem isn't the constitutional republic model, it is that it requires humans to operate it. Humans are fallible and as Gollum knew very susceptible to clutching the ring.
I could live with a limited government, but think it will fall short of my ideal which is to live my life unfettered by extortion.

My perfect world is not one of a government by coercion, which as far as I know is virtually every government that's existed. I do not advocate you not having your government, I advocate me having the freedom to participate or not. I do not advocate "anarchy" for you and everybody else much the same as I would not insist everybody must eat lima beans. Just because something has never been done doesn't mean it is impossible to do or will never happen so my "ideal" could occur in the future.

I advocate a "free market" of governments, a voluntary society based on consensual interactions etc. The first "rule" would be not to permit the initiation of force against a peaceful person, that pretty much spells trouble for governments in my world. I find the present government in this country to be very contradictory. I would not be surprised to see it shift dramatically within a period of a few years. My experiences with government have been mostly bad and that has probably influenced my point of view somewhat.

It's good to be back on this forum as I'd been away awhile. I appreciate your point of view and look forward to engaging in discussions.

doc111 · Sep 25, 2010

Rob Roy said:
Hello Johnny. How many governments have ever remained "limited"? The problem isn't the constitutional republic model, it is that it requires humans to operate it. Humans are fallible and as Gollum knew very susceptible to clutching the ring.
I could live with a limited government, but think it will fall short of my ideal which is to live my life unfettered by extortion.

My perfect world is not one of a government by coercion, which as far as I know is virtually every government that's existed. I do not advocate you not having your government, I advocate me having the freedom to participate or not. I do not advocate "anarchy" for you and everybody else much the same as I would not insist everybody must eat lima beans. Just because something has never been done doesn't mean it is impossible to do or will never happen so my "ideal" could occur in the future.

I advocate a "free market" of governments, a voluntary society based on consensual interactions etc. The first "rule" would be not to permit the initiation of force against a peaceful person, that pretty much spells trouble for governments in my world. I find the present government in this country to be very contradictory. I would not be surprised to see it shift dramatically within a period of a few years. My experiences with government have been mostly bad and that has probably influenced my point of view somewhat.

It's good to be back on this forum as I'd been away awhile. I appreciate your point of view and look forward to engaging in discussions.

It's good to see you back Rob. I wondered what had happened to ya. I feel pretty much the same way as you do about governments. I wish we could choose to be governed or not. Unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head with the "Human" thing. Even a utopia like the one you and I imagine is subject to the whims of humanity. It would only take 1 or 2 catastrophes and some would be screaming for more "control" so they could feel secure. Even the most perfect society is subject to the corruption found in all governments. There will always be those who wish to take advantage of others, whether it be a band of marauding "road warrior" type bandits or smiling politicians in monkey suits. :-(

Johnnyorganic · Sep 25, 2010

Rob Roy said:
Hello Johnny. How many governments have ever remained "limited"? The problem isn't the constitutional republic model, it is that it requires humans to operate it. Humans are fallible and as Gollum knew very susceptible to clutching the ring.
I could live with a limited government, but think it will fall short of my ideal which is to live my life unfettered by extortion.

My perfect world is not one of a government by coercion, which as far as I know is virtually every government that's existed. I do not advocate you not having your government, I advocate me having the freedom to participate or not. I do not advocate "anarchy" for you and everybody else much the same as I would not insist everybody must eat lima beans. Just because something has never been done doesn't mean it is impossible to do or will never happen so my "ideal" could occur in the future.

I advocate a "free market" of governments, a voluntary society based on consensual interactions etc. The first "rule" would be not to permit the initiation of force against a peaceful person, that pretty much spells trouble for governments in my world. I find the present government in this country to be very contradictory. I would not be surprised to see it shift dramatically within a period of a few years. My experiences with government have been mostly bad and that has probably influenced my point of view somewhat.

It's good to be back on this forum as I'd been away awhile. I appreciate your point of view and look forward to engaging in discussions.

Welcome back, RR.

I appreciate your point and I do not entirely disagree. But the Constitution was designed to be the stopping feature for an overreaching government. Unfortunately, eternal vigilance was not maintained. The watchers were human, too. And somewhere along the way they fell short, or were shouted down, or eliminated.

Meaning we have a Federal government our founders would not recognize.

But I must reiterate that Anarchy is not a viable solution. Because that is what you propose by suggesting the elimination of government.

The Native Americans lost their lands because they were separated into loose-knit tribes and nations; any of which might be in a state of war with a rival tribe or nation at any given time.

It was not Anarchy in the strictest sense of the word, but it was about as close to it as you can get. Native America was conquered precisely because it had no central organizational structure governing a confederation of Indian nations.

Eventually a bigger, stronger, and meaner tribe arrived from across the big water and systematically murdered, displaced, or subjugated all of them.

In a state of anarchy somebody bigger, meaner, and better organized will emerge and take what they want. Anarchy gives true meaning to the term 'a dog eat dog world.'

Ultimately the chaos of Anarchy precedes dictatorship.

Rob Roy · Sep 26, 2010

The problem is, permanent strong central governments which are big enough to protect are also big enough to dictate or cause "chaos". I don't begrudge people choosing their leaders, I prefer to be my own leader in most cases and resent somebody appointing themselves or being appointed by others as my "leader". I believe my responsibility to others is to leave them alone.

Building alliances for mutual benefit, even temporary ones does require some effort, but it can be done. I think that was the original purpose of the United States. Independent states pledged to protect each other from foreign aggression. I take that logic a step further and think it can work on an individual basis in some circumstances.

Way back when I was in high school, there was this guy that was a bit of a bully. He was a big bad senior and had threatened to kick one of my buddy's butts, me being a freshman and considerably smaller than the bully, I couldn't protect my friend by myself. My friend just wanted to avoid the bully and the humilation of a stomping. I told him we needed to stop the asshole bully, I said follow me we are going to find this tough guy and set him straight. He thought I was crazy, until he realized what I had proposed might work. When we encountered said bully, he was informed that an act of aggression against either one of us would result in HIS ass getting kicked by both of us in a two on one. He got the picture. I later ran into the bully after I'd grown a bit...he was proven to be a paper tiger, but I digress.

My point being that aligning interests for mutual benefit and protection, while preserving individuality can be done. No need for a permanent central government in my life anyhow.

Some of the anarchists I know are very peaceful, so I don't think it is the anarchy that causes the problem. I think it is the people that cannot accept that they will be governed and others will somehow escape the same governance that cause the problems. That's been my experience anyhow. Recently a friend of mine opened a food establishment and refused to get licensed etc. His customers (I'm one of them) are satisfied, nobody complained yet he has now been ordered to shut down by the State. He has no intention of doing that, so what will happen?

I'm certain the state isn't protecting anyone, since those who don't like his establishment can simply not go there. So who is being protected? It is the legitimacy of the state that is being challenged. Do they have a right to intervene between two consenting people to make a business transaction? I say no. My friend says no. I'll keep buying his hotdogs and he will keep selling them. We both know what will happen next, the state will go from sending nasty letters to doing what they always do, they will apply force and intervene in the lives of peaceful people. They will spin the story as protecting people, the reality being the STATE will initiate harm and protect themselves. The state has become "the bigger stronger tribe" and my friend has become the "indian". I will stand with him, we will see where the state takes this, but it will be them, not my friend that caused this.

Rob Roy · Sep 26, 2010

doc111 said:
It's good to see you back Rob. I wondered what had happened to ya. I feel pretty much the same way as you do about governments. I wish we could choose to be governed or not. Unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head with the "Human" thing. Even a utopia like the one you and I imagine is subject to the whims of humanity. It would only take 1 or 2 catastrophes and some would be screaming for more "control" so they could feel secure. Even the most perfect society is subject to the corruption found in all governments. There will always be those who wish to take advantage of others, whether it be a band of marauding "road warrior" type bandits or smiling politicians in monkey suits.

Thank you for the welcome back greeting doc. I've been caught up in a situation where my freedom was denied even though I've never hurt anyone. The situation isn't resolved, but rather than hang my head as they would like, I've decided to point out the hypocrisy in the system. It may be tilting at windmills to some, but if I wait for somebody else to stand up to a flawed system that may never happen. My choice to fight will likely result in greater punishment as the biggest threat to their system is "disobedience" and failing to worship at their alter of "justice".

Got busted awhile back, and I ain't taking no plea, the case is dragging on and will be appealed. I'm a peaceful guy and know when I'm right. I won't back down. Unfortunately neither will they and they are the ones that resort to violence if people attempt to own themselves. If (when?) I'm imprisoned it will only point out the validity of my arguments. For the time being I'm "free" and intend to make the most of it.

What is it Orwell said? Telling the truth, when the government is wrong is dangerous...well something like that anyway.

Peace.

The 24 Types of Libertarian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member