Anarchy Is The Meaning Of Life

Government is not permanent, it can only attempt fixing what has already passed, increases the number of people which increases flaws, and adds a third step to slow every process, at what point is government a good idea?

I can already hear the leftists complaining over my title. The idea that anarchy is order, government is a monopoly on violence, and you, yes, you, live under anarchy right now. Without anarchy, you would not exist. Allow me to explain in the following words, if this does not "wake you up", you are unhelpable, (for my sake, lets agree that is a word) if after reading this, you still cannot entertain the idea of anarchism, you can thank the schooling you probably brag about for giving you such a non accepting ignorant way of thinking. On that sour note, I say we begin!

So, you woke up today, at a time you set, probably 15 minutes after the exact time. (At least I do that) You brushed your teeth so you would have tolerable breath and some pearly whites. You've dressed yourself in some clothes you bought, you made a little outfit to wear to seem socially acceptable. You may have had breakfast, I usually skip, but its your choice! You want breakfast? Make the best breakfast you've ever had! Then off to work or school most likely. And to end your day, you stopped at the store to buy a water bottle. Now let me be the first to say it, congratulations on using anarchism! Yes you. By living your life the way you've chosen to live it, you have engaged in anarchism. You set your alarm, you're self regulating, you didn't need a regulation to make you do that. You've chosen to brush your teeth, an act of freewill unseen by the government. You've picked out your clothes, a government didn't buy those for you. You even went as far as making breakfast, all by yourself! What an outstanding anarchist you are! And yes I hear you, you statist, "But if muh government didn't regulate the food to make sure it was safe, then I could have been poisoned!" Are you saying that if food went unregulated, and you had a chance of hurting yourself, you would not have checked it yourself? You're saying that if government did not check your food, you would not check your own food? You would not even check what you're putting into your body? You're smarter than that, come on. And finally, when you bought that water bottle, you've acted in voluntary exchange that benefited both parties, which was an act of freedom by not being forced to buy it, you've also helped the business, meaning you're using the basic concept of a free market. However the government intruded on even that and stole its tax money from that almost solely voluntary exchange between parties. So if it went without government, the only thing that would have changed is after that transaction, you would have had more money left over! Wow.. Government sure is a downer..

Government is so intrusive and rude. If I were to use a metaphor, the government would be the bully threatening everyone for their lunch money because he was stronger. Or it would be the mafia, "selling" protection from violence, which is just saying, "hey, give me money, and I wont do violence on you". Government is really a forceful threatening entity isn't it? I am even offended that so many voted for more government. That's just the increase of people saying threatening things to me. I care about you, that's why I don't want the government to steal your money on my behalf. To believe the government is capable of running ANYTHING successfully is utter idiocy. "Yes, lets give complete and total power to someone that believes in 2014, that the only way to obtain money is to steal it", really? You're placing the foundation of a country on that? You're telling me that if the government ceased to exist, by 2014 we would still not have roads? If private companies were welcome in "capitalist" America, we would have had solar roads decades ago! Under government, ideas are not welcome. As taxation, the idea of collecting money by threats of imprisonment, which if you say no to imprisonment, you are shot, beaten, maced, tackled, and dragged to prison if you aren't killed. How is that better than voluntary cooperation? "Well if it were voluntary, not everyone would pay" My argument to that, not everyone pays now. "Well, it would be so small, the government would have to shrink and couldn't sustain itself" OK, good, that's my point. To agree with taxation, is to agree with immorality. Taxation being taking of property without consent of the owner. Let me type you a quote, since you disagree with morality in some cases. "If you disagree with morality, I may rape your mother". See? If you say in some cases immorality is correct, then anyone is allowed to define at what point morality begins and ends. What will it take for people to learn that taxation is stealing?

Taxation, citizens are placing their trust in a group of people that believe stealing is an affective way of making money.. That really points out how outdated the government truly is. "If we don't forcefully steal their money, they will not give it to us". Governments are perpetually outdated. A government looks backwards, to look at problems that have already happened, then tries to fix a problem that is already no more. That is not a valid way of operating. Just think, government doesn't help people BEFORE a problem happens, they help them AFTER its happened. Government only helps poor people AFTER the problem is too late. Healthcare only kicks in AFTER someone is sick. That is not innovation, that is a broken system. If government didn't help people, the people would be able to find the exact help they need, without waiting for months to see a generalized doctor that see's so many people that their practice is slowed to a crawl making everyone get worse before they're helped. If people were allowed to find the exact type of care they needed, they would be able to search all over the country for the right doctor, without the doctor being forced to treat so many patients, they would be seen for their problem sooner and become well before it gets worse. Free markets work. Black markets thrive. Government run anything is a broken system.

Something else government can't do. Government wont stop you from dying. It may drone you or have police come to your home which both could in fact kill you.. But do you really think the government is the answer? Its not. The government only perpetuates its own existence, and does not allow anyone else to do what its doing. It robs the rich and middle class, and the poor, forcing them lower, and gives a very very small amount of that to the the poor that is such a fraction, it only locks them in the place they're in so they are forced into dependence. The government even places so many tax codes, regulations, and permits into living off of your own business it doesn't allow most people to be free enough to do it. It also forces you to have to have a large amount of money to be able to pay for the permits and such. Its honestly depressing how the government doesn't allow those with less money to be able to take care of themselves. Its sad. However they get a bubble built around them. A safety net, that gives a false sense of security. "The government gave me healthcare", by stealing from everyone else, and if you're going to die, it will not stop it, nothing can. "The government keeps us safe from terrorism", then why do the terrorists still attack us? The government is not efficient at running anything. Private companies are sending us to our space station, the VA is sending vets to hospitals, and private companies are making solar roads!

Amidst everything that's wrong with government, what is the saddest part? The ones that believe in voluntaryism. The government has made everyone so brainwashed by giving them fake securities, fake because with healthcare people still die, with the NSA, TSA, ect we still have terrorists, those securities are all smoke and mirrors. The saddest part, is that everyone is so brainwashed, I am called insane for believing the idea that all interaction should be voluntary, and exempt of force. The idea that governing your own life, (even though you already do it every day) is considered crazy. The idea that being free, would lead to evil because of how humans naturally are, but putting these evil people in charge of all is a sane idea.. The disgusting idea that the TSA touching your crotch, that if you don't give the government money they will lock you up, that babies being harmed in unwarranted drug raids that usually harm babies and dogs, that not allowing some to defend them self by banning guns, that going to war and killing people half way around the globe is all in the name of freedom... That is the most disgusting lie I have ever heard.

However my political views are catching on, numbers are increasing. The idea of voluntaryism, anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism are all ahead of their time, those are the political views of the future. But we'll get there.This is just the birth of this political party, and its already come further than any other party has in their full lifespan. Jeffery Tucker is an amazing and intelligent individual that is an anarchist. If we want to see a true future, where everyone is equal, and where thievery, killing and all immoral actions are against the law, we have to stop allowing the government to commit these immoral acts and not hold them accountable. Immorality does not change if you work in government.

Now I'll end this with the best parts.
1. The concept of forced cooperation is very quickly being seen as what it truly is. Taxation is finally being called stealing.
2.The longer we have government, the more anarchists it creates, as it crushes someones freedom, they begin to research new ways to do things. Like voluntaryism and anarchism. Remember, anarchy means no leaders, not no rules.
3.Obamas second term has left a sour taste in the mouths of everyone that are not so ignorant they can't see the corruption. And as the government becomes larger, it creates more anarchists, more people that understand a centralized authority is not needed in this day and age. Meaning the state is killing itself with its own progress. What a tragic thought.
4.Finally, each person lives under their own governing every single day, even if they work in government, they still primarily take care of them self, meaning they are using a form of anarchy, so once people begin to figure that out. They'll see that anarchism is life, and is freedom. I believe I have finally converted from a minarchist. To an anarchist.

The government needs people to survive. People do not need a government to survive.
Live free.
-Ryan

Government Is Immoral

     Lets open this the right way. Government is an immoral monopoly on violence being used only to further control the minority by misleading the majority to vote a certain way using all forms of media...

You're probably assuming me to be a loud mouth, Alex Jones, chemtrail hunting, right wing Texan, right? Congratulations to the readers that proved my previous point by believing me to be a scary person made out by the mainstream media. Despite what you're told to believe, I'm not. I'm simply a person that believes everyone must follow and be accountable for their actions based on a moral standard of not interrupting someones life if they do not wish for you to. If you disagree with that, then I have to tell you, you are an immoral person. Say you live on a farm, no neighbors, just your livestock and family. You wake early to tend to the needs of your animals, you feed and take care of your family, and you're in bed by 8pm. Followed everything your parents told you to do, are a strict but fair authority figure. However, you voted for Obama. Do you know what that means? You have voted that I be forced to pay money or get kidnapped. You voted that if I own a gun that is larger than another, I am to have guns pointed at me and have my property stolen. You voted for someone to send drones to the Middle East and blow up (possible) threats to our nation. You also funded this by paying your taxes, that doesn't sound very moral now, does it?

By voting I pay more money (through taxation) you are committing an immoral act. By telling the federal government to raise taxes, you are telling them to force me to give more. Force? That means I must give, even if I can't, or if I don't want to. But because they get my money when I don't want them to, that means they're taking it. Taking against someones wishes is stealing. What happens if you don't let them steal your money? They tell you that they will send you to jail. Which refusing someone steal your money isn't wrong, is it? Well then that means, them taking you to jail is kidnapping by refusing to allow theft. Lets go one step further, say you don't want to be kidnapped because you must take care of your family, as you are the only provider, refusing to let them kidnap you results in them harming you physically or even killing you for disobeying. Now how moral is that? Taxation is theft, supporting higher taxes is voting in favor of the minority voters being robbed against their will. Still believe you're moral?

Lets get deeper into this idea of immoral actions carried out by the federal government. Do you believe stealing property is moral? By supporting gun control, you are not only immoral, but you are encouraging theft, uncivilized behavior and hypocrisy. (Not to mention you're breaking the law by voting for this, and probably too weak minded to successfully order at a drive-thru) You are immoral because you are supporting theft, theft is taking property that doesn't belong to you, I like my collection of firearms, but you don't, so you are stealing them from me and disposing of them, well you aren't doing the action of taking them, but police are doing this on your behalf. You are forcing me to live in a way where my choice of personal defense is invalid, (What if I forced women to have their birth control stolen at gunpoint? Would you also vote for this?) you are forcing me to defend my home with a knife. Do you even understand what that means? If someone broke into my home wanting nothing more than to kill me, the police can NOT arrive in time, and if I have a gun, I can fire one shot and its over. (If the intimidation of having a gun pointed at them doesn't cause them to flee or surrender. Where with a knife, I have to get close enough to hit them, meaning if they're stronger than me, I die. But if I am able to defend myself, you would force me to have to go through the horrific event of cutting this person to death, I am forced to hack away at the intruders throat with a knife until they bleed to death. A baseball bat involves me beating someone until their skull breaks open. Killing them. And do not even mention a shotgun. The intruders torso would explode. Handguns are to prevent this primitive way of defending yourself. Its like the car, we no longer need horses. (Although some still wish we did... Hasn't Al Sharpton declared sitting on horses racist by now?) Now onto the hypocrisy of this, you demand I lose my guns, but demand criminals be allowed to keep their guns. Criminals do not use registered guns, so you are demanding criminals have a way to defend them self, but not me. You wanna know how they take my guns? Men with guns come to my home, arrest me and then steal my property, all on your behalf. What do you think about the idea of someone going to somebodies house with a gun and stealing their property in your name?

You know that last part sounds a lot like what you may have voted for in terms of our foreign policy. If you voted for Obama, you then voted for drones in the Middle East. What are drones you ask? They are an unmanned aircraft that flies so high they're out of site to anyone on the ground, and when the camera picks up what looks like a (possible) threat, it fires a missile straight down on top of whatever is presumed to be the threat. Blowing up anything in the immediate area, maiming and destroying anyone nearby, and no one saw, heard or knew it was coming. You voted for this by voting for Obama. Did you know this is an illegal act? It is illegal to wage war or kill someone by military force in other Countries without declaring war. (Which he hasn't) These drone strikes happen far too often, and the mistake count is endless. A reporter holding a camera was once misconstrued as a terrorist threat and was killed. You paid for and voted for that. Remember the whistle blower that exposed this atrocity? Not Edward Snowden, that other guy, his name escapes me... It stars with a B I'm pretty sure... But he brought this to light and has been locked away and not heard from since. As for mistakes, the marines leak showed military blowing up peaceful people and laughing as they exploded and how their limbs were torn from their bodies and thrown across the blood soaked and decimated town. A drone strike has blown up families taking their children to school. Drone strikes have killed people in wedding convoys. And just to help you understand how serious this is, these drones are in America right now. Flying over us and watching us. All on your dime, you funded this with your taxes. Funding the death of innocent people. You are also forcing me to fund this with taxation. I want no part in this, but you have forced me with threats of violence. That, is truly, truly, immoral...

Now do you see what I am against? The federal government is not needed for anything! (ANYTHING) Believing we can't achieve a livable society without having this monopoly on violence is simply uncivilized and stupid. You do not need to force people with threats of violence to create a society. Centralization is created by threats and stealing. In order to become a more civilized society, we must decentralize everything. A large centralized government is the theory that everyone must be harmed for disobeying, even though refusing thievery, (not paying taxes) is the proper moral response. Because denying immoral behavior is the only way to achieve moral results. Supporting a centralized authority that has the right to commit immoral actions, can only create immoral results. You cannot use immoral actions, to create moral results. Immorality breeds only immorality. Forcing someone to steal my money by majority vote means you support the minority have their property stolen by threats of kidnapping or possibly killing. That is immoral, and is uncivilized. Anything beyond voluntary is wrong.

DECENTRALIZE EVERYTHING.
Stay free.

Progression of a Conservative

                                       In this one I'm going to explain my political transformation, from a confused hypocritical republican, to a true minarchist/libertarian. And reasons why I stand to uphold moral standards.

To begin, I didn't follow politics, I didn't understand politics, I didn't care about politics. Whenever anyone spoke of politics I became nervous as I had no clue in the slightest to what they were talking about. (This also explains how I feel when watching anything from MTV) So I stayed away from it, rejecting all forms of news for the first seventeen years of my life, but once I turned eighteen, that changed everything. This meant I could vote, I knew I wanted to, it felt important, so I began learning about politics during Obamas second term run against Romney. (I think the fact my name was on bumper stickers "Romney/Ryan" is why I was a little more excited)

I remember I was with Mittens Romney, I didn't care for the direction Obama had taken the economy, which by the way, Obama did not take on Bush's bad economy, if Obama was doing the right thing we would have seen a turn around... And that he was infringing our rights, by stronger gun laws, increased taxes, more regulations on small businesses, the NSA (and yes, I am aware Bush signed the papers to allow this with the Patriot Act) Also the TSA, the militarization of the police force, are you aware that SWAT wear more protection that people in the military? Back to topic, Mitt stood for a smaller government, and a better budget. Then there was Ron Paul, someone I heard was crazy and a conspiracy theorist, I'll get into that later on.

Based on my list of likes and dislikes, I fell into the republican catagory, I was built up with the debates going on as well, it had me excited and ready to vote. However, it never really fit, I didn't see myself as a "republican", I had an identity crisis, much like Hilary Clintons identity crisis of sticking with a hairstyle... So the search began for a label, what was I? What did I stand for?

After taking a few political tests and doing some research, I was instantly attached and instinctively agreed with the libertarian party, I was a 100% libertarian, but kept it a secret as it felt wrong, I felt if you were outside of the two party system you were wrong, but then realized, that's the problem, the problem isn't that I was a third party, the problem was that this two party system rejected the idea of there being another party. So I now begun the search for libertarian speakers, and is where I found, Ron Paul. And made me question why there was such a hate for him. Then it all made sense, as before, its not that he is crazy, it's that he is breaking the mold of what's known to be "normal". Because he is someone in charge that dislikes government, there's a joke among libertarians that goes, "Whats the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months". So I now had someone to look to for good libertarian views, I had my party of choice, but what about economics? I still needed to find out where I landed in all areas of politics.

Growing up, all TV ever taught me was that capitalism was evil, evil rich white men control the world. Until I looked it up and saw it meant you keep your earnings...really... Even toddlers running lemonade stands understand the concept that if you make something, you deserve what you get in return for it! So a capitalist I was, which I then found free markets which again, the freedom to sell someone a product they will pay for?  Yeah, I'm definitely pro free market capitalism. From this, I saw hypocrisy, capitalism means keeping the property (money) you've legitimately earned. Where taxation is taking that property without consent... Isn't that stealing? Taking somebodies property by threats of force without their permission? Yep, that's stealing... This brought me to the NAP. The NAP, or non aggression principle is against all forms of force against peaceful, non intruding individuals. So free markets and NAP go hand in hand and stand by the moral code that no one is permitted to use violence to get their way. (Government is a guarantee that some will steal, kidnap & kill).

One massive point libertarians stand for is true equality. Not this give some people or business bailouts, that gives them an unfair advantage over the competition which is not fair. Libertarians say government should not be above the law either, its not right that by declaring a group of people a government, that then grants them the right to take your money without agreement, kidnap you and lock you in a cage if you disobey, take your property if you choose to not give them money that is rightfully yours, even giving them the right to declare war. At what point do those working in government become above the law and are given the right to control you? Government is only a group of people with an opinion that will threaten to harm you if you disagree.

If Obamacare were a Wal-Mart, the "99%" would be up at arms with them, forcing someone to buy their product? Why is it government is allowed to do that? By the way, there is no 99%, its us and government so please quit saying how wonderful the occupy movement was, you wanna know how great it was? they destroyed property, urinated on anything within genitals reach, closed public restrooms by leaving used needles everywhere and beating the life out of anyone that questioned. But forcing someone against their will to participate is morally wrong, this led me to voluntaryism. The idea that all transactions and interactions should be voluntary, this again, went hand in hand with free markets and capitalism, it was also something Ron Paul had spoke of, I was on to something. I then saw how regulations were forced agreements, so a regulation-free free market seems right, don't worry, I hear you..."WHAT ABOUT POLUTION??" This falls into the NAP, as a code of conduct that would be agreed upon in business to not allow harmful smog to hurt people. "WHAT ABOUT 1 DOLLAR AN HOUR COMPANIES?????" With open markets, people can freely and easily find other jobs, it would open a low pay job for homeless to make money to help them live. Or the business would shut down by lack of production. No regulation? Capitalism? I am now economically an anarcho-capitalist. Or an-cap.

Maybe anarchism is the answer? Well, not quite, we do need courts to maintain private property rights and uphold the NAP, we also should have police to maintain peace and offer help to the helpless. And a defensive military to help defend the location we inhabit, so extremely limited government to only protect the individual? That's minarchism, any famous minarchists? Ayn Rand. Sadly shes passed, however this Russian woman spoke of capitalism, free markets, minarchism and warned of statism back in the days of black and white TVs. Ayn had strongly disagreed with anarchism, as with zero order, a government could be created and end up with what we now have. Where minarchism however, has a set idea of government, and would not allow a controlling government to be built. Minarchism it is.

So that is my very long story of how I became what I am. Hopefully not too long, this was still enjoyable to write. To wrap up I'll say this, my views are based on a zero tolerance for hypocritical standpoints, (Such as killing is wrong, however abortion is good) my views also stand by a moral code, at no point does anyone have the right to act immorally. (Such as stealing is wrong, unless its called taxation)

So there is my conversion to a minarchist/anarcho-capitalist. I hope this wasn't too terribly long, I just enjoy writing. If you read this thank you for voluntarily spending your time, if you have anymore time to spend, please google "voluntaryism", its a concept I believe should be taught. Thank you for reading. Stay free.

Forced Views & Shared mistakes

Forced Views & Shared mistakes

 I have seen nothing but failure through the idea of one person running something. One man has one set of views, if he is in charge, he will force his views upon everyone even if they disagree, and when he makes mistakes, we all face the failure he has brought, even if we chose to not participate. No matter how you look at it, the presidency is against some people, and I think we've reached a point in history where exclusion by majority vote is no longer acceptable. Everyone should have a voice, and everyone should have a voice that's heard, not weather the majority agrees or not.

Think of it like this, right now we live under "the greater good" theory, the idea that if it hurts some people that's too bad because the majority is getting their way. We live in a way where the individual falls through the cracks and is forgotten, even if they had a better idea than the rest. Living under the idea of the greater good does nothing but hurt the minority, if drivers lived by the greater good code, in driving, if two cars are waiting at a stop sign to turn right, but there's seven cars waiting to go straight, under this idea, the two cars should never be allowed to go because there are more drivers wanting to go another way, forcing the lesser drivers to find another way to reach their goal. That is the idea of a majority vote presidency.

Voting for one man is no longer a reasonable plan, one man cannot properly run a nation. He may be intelligent when it comes to economics, but lacking when it comes to foreign policy. No on is good at everything, one man cannot do the job properly, its time we find a new method. I suggest the idea of having multiple presidents. All of different political parties to prevent a one party view, each with their own opinions and strengths. We would also have each president to pick from for each situation. This way we have a chance to vote on each problem.

Imagine four or five people in charge. When a problem like Syria arises, each president gives a speech on what they think is the best solution, then the people vote on their favored idea given, then the winner is in charge of handling that issue. And if he screws up, the one with the second most votes takes over, so we are not trapped with the choices of one man, and the people have a voice in each problem, the majority is divided into sections per problem, that way the majority is nearly non existent.

However each state would vote up who they want to run, and we would run an elimination process for everyone, creating more involved and informed voters, but instead of ending with two where we must pick one, dividing the country in half,but in charge by the peoples votes. No more "I have a pen, and I have a phone" garbage, these presidents would create a solution speech for each crisis we must take care of, then they present it to us, and we all vote on who has the best idea, its near fool proof. This way each individual has a voice in each problem, we are no longer trapped under one man for many years, so when something goes south, the next with highest votes would take over and correct it before whatever the problem is worsens.
the top four or five would then be in charge,

That was my two cents on the idea to curb majority rule (for the most part) and destroy the one man rules without the peoples voice concept. Which brings back the true form of government, a government that works for the people.

Thank you for reading, when you have a moment of time, please Google "voluntaryism", because forcing someone to give you money is wrong, being in government does not make it right. Don't forget to right up a draft email for the NSA to read thanking them for protecting us from terrorism...April fools... Stay free.
-Ryan

Question Everything

Welcome to my blog. Having never written, (typed) one before, this may start out rather messy until I figure everything out.

 Now, allow me to open with a short description of what to expect. If you are a leftist, a liberal, democrat, admire government, or have ever uttered the words "But who will build the roads?", not sarcastically, you're not going to enjoy this... This blog is in no way something to sway someones decisions, as I believe each person lives according to what works for them. This is simply my thoughts, ideas and suggestions, Enjoy.

I'm Ryan, I am a libertarian, or at least this is what I say to people that ask, because libertarian is the closest mainstream buzzword in the political spectrum that I fall into, but you aren't some stranger reading this, are you? We're practically related! I mean you're alive, I'm alive, and chances are you're probably not some domesticated cat using the computer while your owner is out... So to be exact on what I am, I'm a minarchist. It is in no way an anarchist, as anarchists believe in zero government and no rulers, where I believe in minimal government, I want government protecting the individual and doing nothing more. Courts, police and a military on defense is plenty.

Now for economics, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Let me explain, anarcho, as in anarchism, is zero control, truly free markets with zero regulations, no paperwork, only a very simple to follow code of conduct that will not allow someone to interfere with anyone or property. And capitalism because keeping money you've earned just makes sense. Allowing someone to prosper is simply life, making money by selling someone a service is not selfish, (That was a lot of S's) selfish is believing someone owes you money they worked for. I think no one should be forced to give something if they choose not to.

While we're talking about force, let me say that I'm a voluntaryist, and live according to N.A.P (Non- Aggression-Principle). Non aggression simply means its immoral and wrong to use force on someone when it is not an act of self defense. Which you probably learned before you could count. And voluntaryism is the idea that all transaction should be voluntary, as forcing someone to buy your product is wrong. Imagine for a moment, imagine a big business going door to door and forcing everyone to buy from them. That's not good, right? This is what our government does, this is how the government lives. What makes them different? Nothing.

Government is nothing special, its not. I do not understand at what point people started believing government is the all mighty power that you must pay without question... At what point does the government go from being a group of people with an idea, to magically turning into this authority that has the right to rob you, detain you, punish you, kidnap you and even kill you? Trick question, there is no point, they're the same as us! (although some will tell you they're shape shifting lizards from space) Is it a paper that gives them the right to take your money? Is there a plastic card identifying them as the person who can legally rob you? Immoral acts are immoral, no piece of paper or card in your wallet can change the fact that stealing is wrong. If something is bad, its bad.

If some mugger walked up to you and said "I've made this piece of paper, it gives me the right to take your money, because it will help people when I use it how I see fit, and if you disobey, I then have the authority to kidnap and detain you until you give me the money, and if you resist my demands, I have the right to kill you", believe this or not, what I just quoted is literally, literally how the government functions. But people are bad, right? So we need to keep them in line...

If people are bad and need to be kept in line, how can we trust these same people to be in power? See what I mean? No matter what the dilemma, government is not the answer. There is no magic paper that allows someone to rob you, there is no special card to force a peaceful individual into cooperation, its all in your mind that government is allowed to do this. The idea that specific people you do not know own you because they say they are government is ridiculous, the idea that people are evil and need a group of these evil people to rule is ridiculous. Its barbaric, the idea of a group of people claiming to be in charge so you owe them money or they'll kidnap you is a mafia, or is what the barbarians did way back when... Thinking we must steal by force at gunpoint because when someone is born they owe money is just.. Its wrong. A government steals money without consent by threats of violence, that is an immoral act if committed by a single person, even if its to help his family. At what point, does this immoral act, become moral?

Question everything.

If you actually read this entire thing, thank you, seriously, I couldn't wait to share my thoughts to see who agrees, I also truly believe this way of thinking will see an increase very soon, I wear my beliefs on my sleeve and am proud of who I am. I hope this helped some people in some way. Thank you so much for reading, there's a lot on the way. Live free.
-Ryan