Those who think private property rights explain why the government can keep honest and peaceful people out of the country are confusing laws with morality.
Moral governments don’t give and take rights, they help people protect their natural rights. Your private property rights don’t extend beyond your private property.
People use politics to obtain advantages over others without paying for the rights they take from them.
Zoltan Istvan writes
Liberty Might be Better Served by Doing Away with Privacy
There is a difference between privacy and security. It is important to keep property secure, but keeping private any information not related to keeping property secure is unnecessary and possibly diminishes cooperation and division of labor.
Knowledge is power, and the more that knowledge is spread through society the more just is the society. With everyone having equal access to knowledge, fraud and deceit are minimized especially when it is politicians and government that are trying to deceive by keeping secrets.
Knowledge like liberty is something you can give everyone without taking something physically from someone. The idea that knowledge can be used for economic or political advantage should be considered immoral just as the use of force is considered immoral by those following the Non-Aggression Principle.
“Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.”
― Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People
I am not trolling, these are questions I would like someone who wants to make abortion illegal provide either answers, or a link to a site that provides answers to these questions.
In a previous post Jacob Hornberger argues in favor of making the government weaker. I support his position, but extended the discussion to the following with some editing.
Ben:
One of the push backs by those who favor at least some significant standing army/navy is that today we would not have the time we had before WWI and WWII to mobilize and without large conventional forces the U.S. government would be more likely to use nuclear weapons.
Those attacks don’t take months of preparation to be sure, but people also need to understand it does not take a standing army with outpost in 100 nations to try to protect us from those occurrences.
When I have nothing better to do, I will try to get John Bolton to make that policy recommendation.
Final words from Jacob:
“The problem is that anti-American terrorism is rooted in what the military and the CIA do to people over there. So, it becomes a never-ending racket–they go kill people over there, people retaliate, and then people say, “we have to be over there to kill them before they kill us over here, and so they kill more people, which then causes people to retaliate, etc. etc.
Jacob Hornberger considers the Left’s concerns about the Trump – Russian axis.
Excepts:
What’s wrong with an American politician “colluding” with a Russian politician to win an American election?
How come no one talked about prosecuting FDR for colluding with the Soviet communists?
While we are on the subject of U.S. regime-change operations, both foreign and domestic, a question naturally arises: If Russian “meddling” in U.S. elections is considered to be a bad thing, then why does the U.S. government meddle in elections and other domestic politics in other countries?
Maybe — just maybe — the Trump-Russia controversy will cause more Americans to do some serious soul-searching over the meddling in which the U.S. government has engaged in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and yes, even Russia. Maybe — just maybe — the Trump-Russia controversy will cause Americans to question why their government is now based on the principles of empire, a national-security state, and foreign interventionism.
There is talk that Congress will revise the Income Tax laws. Usually these revisions make filing tax returns more complicated.
If the majority of Americans continue to want the IRS to collect income taxes, lets at least reduce the burden on the typical American.
Currently the system requires the individual to file tax returns. The IRS then compares the information you provided with W-2, 1099’s, Mortgage Payments etc they receive from third parties, and decide whether to bother you, or send you a refund.
How about doing it the other way. Let the IRS compute what they think your income taxes should be based on the information they collect, then send you a statement. If you agree with their calculations, then pay the amount owed or ask for a check for the over-payment. If you disagree with their statement then file a return stating what you think is the proper amount.
When I drive on the highway near my home, I pass dozens of eating establishments. Most are 1/2 empty. What a waste.
I go to the supermarket and see aisles and aisles of food languishing on the shelves. What a waste.
Most homes have a stove and an oven that at most are used 10% of the time. What a waste.
Many people drive to supermarkets in gasoline powered vehicles emitting dreaded carbon-dioxide. Wrecking the environment.
Some people cannot afford to pay for food without getting government SNAP cards. Just think of the cost to determine who is eligible for SNAP cards.
Professional nutritionists know best what everybody needs. How many people consult with a nutritionist before deciding what to eat?
It is time to make the food delivery system less costly, and equally available to everyone.
A single payer system could be the best way to go. Using your tax dollars, experts in Washington would pay all the costs of preparing and delivering a nourishing broth to everyone. The broth would be scientifically formulated so that all someone would need to do is eat the proper amount within a 24 hour period to remain healthy.
There could be a fine imposed on anyone who did not eat the right amount. The fine would start small for the slacker who just happened to forget to eat the required portion, but would ramp up for those who seriously under eat. The fine is justified because those who do not eat enough will end up in the health care system, and we would all have to pay for making the person healthy.
About 8.5 million stoves are bought each year. Think of the saving if people did not need to buy stoves. Next year sales are expected to be even higher. www.statista.com/statistics/295477/unit-shipments-of-electric-gas-cooking-appliances/
People are concerned about pipelines that carry petroleum products. A system can be developed that would allow us to eliminate these potentially dangerous pipelines. The government kitchens would be built near the well head of major pipelines, and then (after proper cleaning) the nourishing broth could be delivered to major cities in the pipelines. All the details would have to be worked out, but the concept is sound. Think of all the jobs that would be created building the broth infrastructure. The oil pipelines would no longer be needed, because people would not be driving to supermarkets or restaurants.
Just think, coupon clipping for food discounts would be obsolete. Newspapers and mail carriers will be delighted not having to print and deliver coupons.
If you have other good ideas how a SPFS (Single Payer Food System) would be best for the country let me know at BenBachrach@gmail.com.
From Letters of George Santayana
“”… I too am too old, and my feelings spring from too many deep and remote sources in the past, for me to change, or to be influenced by newspaper arguments. When I read them I form perhaps a new opinion of the newspaper but seldom a new opinion on the subject discussed. We must put up with other people’s irrationalities, and with our own, which are far more troublesome.”
