The Victories Of Process

"Victory lies not in the winning of something, but rather in its process"-Ryan Kerr

Well there you go. My first quote. Those 13 words are all I really need to write for this entire piece. However similar quotes are most likely floating everywhere. So to give mine legs to stand on, I'm going to dissect it for you to show you exactly what I mean. And why this self help thought fits my anti-government blog.

 

 First lets tear apart these words. "Victory" means to achieve. Achieve means to reach or attain. "Lies not in the winning" means "not to be found in the goal". "But rather its process" means "but in its particular matter of steps to meet the end". So what I'm saying, is that the victory is the act of bettering yourself by wanting to reach the goal, not the act of obtaining the goal itself. Of course we become happy when we win a basketball or football game. (Not baseball.. That's way too slow to keep my interest. The real sport in baseball is trying to stay awake from beginning to end. Why else does everyone stand up near the end? They see its coming to a close and decide to get ready. Its like attending a horribly grueling family party. "Weeell looks like its about that time". You get your coat and stand near the nearest exit waiting for the goodbyes to stop) But to watch a sport is only to enjoy the final goal which only lasts a few moments. This is why the players feel so much when they win, they worked to get that victory. And why failure is so upsetting to sports fans. Because they have been cheated out of a victory as their team did not work hard enough for the victory. Meaning the fan loses as well.

Creative and intuitive men are driven by the want to achieve Where as the simple man will only try to beat, outdo, or bring down what he himself  has not been able to do. This is why I have never been friends with a sports fan. If their team wins something, they gloat and brag about the victory they took no part in and beat their chest like some gorilla climbing a skyscraper. Where if they lose, you never stop hearing how terrible the team you've chosen to cheer for are nothing but a pack of unfair cheaters. The simple man also lives in ignorance by refusing victory through the act of bettering himself to a win, rather he will commit the acts listed above. There is a healthy sport in the rivalry of competition. Not in winning. But the act of bettering yourself in the preparation for the competition is where the victory is found and what should be celebrated. Now I completely disagree withe "You're all winners" garbage, as some do lose, and some do win, and we should congratulate those who reach their win. IF it is a fair win. But I still think teaching each participant that by training, they have bettered them self in whatever they were training for. And should be treated as a victory. Because this teaches marvelous work ethic and that free market with voluntary interaction is good. Because anything that says using force is bad, is a good thing. Teaching morality breeds good behavior. Where teaching taxation, (an immoral action) only breeds immorality. If force is good in some cases, that means a woman saying no is not good enough. And the rapist may force his idea of a good idea to her. But teaching the process is the victory teaches working for something is a positive step. Instead of being annoyed by the training. Teach to find joy in the goal, is to set someone up for failure, as they find joy in that moment, and must tell everyone to relive it. Where bettering yourself through the process of trying to achieve victory lasts for eternity.

Those looking only for self glorification at the win of a race have completely missed the point of taking part in the race. The victory does not does not come in the form of who is first to cross the finish line, but he who finds he has bettered himself as a person through the preparation and training he or she did to become good enough to compete. As before a race, you are slow, become winded quickly, your knees ache, and you are only able to run a short distance. But through training and wanting to achieve victory (not through the state) you have become better in that as you can run the miles due to the work you have put into wanting to see the finish line. So the win should be celebrated. But so should the knowing you have bettered yourself through the act of the process.

This is what is wrong with our government. It caters only to those who wish not to work for a victory them self, but still obtain the goal. Meaning EBT cards. Public healthcare. MONEY. The American government actually pays people to NOT work. That only creates laziness. Weather or not you agree with the bible. We can agree on its moral points of living. (And no I don't mean stoning women... I am so tired of people saying this, saying it was right to stone a woman was not even gods word, as this was a depiction of what was done back in biblical times. These people were uncivilized. The commandments taught against these things) But those living with heavy government handouts and have better phones than I do says something. If I work so many hours a week so I can afford a decent phone and pay its bill. But the person next to me gets his obamaphone for free, and makes zero payments because the state steals my money through taxation to give this person a phone. That is the act of accepting failure by not participating in the process, but still receiving the goal. The perfect analogy is a runner who trained to run a race. But someone refused to train. He must now carry that person with him. Which will result in him failing the race. Which he must now be carried as well. If you disagree, you're wrong and too ignorant to see the truth. The victory is not making 15 dollars an hour. (Which is already killing jobs, taking away benefits, tips, and hours by placing people on part time which even though it is 15 dollars an hour, the cut of hours to keep the store alive means the workers make less in a year than when they made less) But the victory is to start at 7 or 8 dollars with a small apartment. Then with the process. You will make more money, live in a better apartment and be able to live on your own. I have news for you, if you cannot live on your minimum wage. You are trying to live in a way you can not afford. If single mothers of multiple kids with health problems can live on minimum wage. And you say you living at home where your parents feed you and pay your bills cannot be lived on minimum wage. You are trying to live in a way that out spends your income. The process you take in bettering your skills to become better at your job to make more money is what makes you successful! Actually working to make more money so you progressively make more is how success works. You cannot tax my success and give my goal to someone refusing to achieve their own success, that is selfishness and breeds far too much immorality for this to last long.

The idea and mindset that one must win or is a failure lives in fear of  the instant moment of losing. Losing and winning both only last seconds. But losing is not shameful. Refusing to take part in fear of losing is shameful. To lose a race shows you were not prepared or have not bettered your skills enough to win yet. To not lose, you must equip yourself with a mind willing to learn. If you lose don't think it was unfair, as the only reason it was unfair, was because you were not prepared for it. Failure is a lesson that means work harder. Not to quit. But to innovate, to learn what must be improved so you can reach your goal. And that is the process. Which is the true victory, and should be taught. As reaching your goal is not some freak accident. Reaching your goal is done by completing your training to reach that goal. THAT victory is the true goal.

This government is backwards. It teaches the many goals reached by those who actually did achieve victory in bettering themselves into prosperity, that will be stolen and given to those who did not want to better themselves. They did not work and still achieved goals by stealing goals of those who did work. That is what taxation is. Taxation is having the goal you've worked for stolen by the state and given to those who chose not to work, which creates dependency, which creates voters that vote for more goals without working for it. Which increases the stealing of goals until those working are forced into dependency by the majority dependent. This is one of the many reasons why democracy does not work.

This mindset, only teaches, "I don't have to work, I still reach my goal of making an income to live off of because others work for their goal, which the state steals a certain percentage of every worker and gives it to me". This will become a festering illness in America very quickly. Within 6 years we have plummeted far from where we were. Each person voting to increase dependency kills another workers ambition to try to keep his head above water while the state continues to pull him deeper into forced dependency. Which then kills another worker, so on and so on. Once there are not enough workers, we will see demise. China is on the verge of passing us already. Soon the nations that have chosen to work will all pass us and America will no longer be the leader of the free world. That day is coming faster every day. The government will be the fall of America. If we continue in big government. Raising taxes lowers income. Lower income makes people demand higher minimum wage. Higher minimum wage raises prices. Raising prices raises taxes. Raising taxes lowers income. Do you see this cycle? Its never ending. And the theory of putting money into the economy stimulates the economy. Do you know this results in 0? Did you know that? Its said that if someone makes more money, they spend more. The money is passed around more and everyones happy. That is not how it works. If you give a store 1 dollar. The government taxes it. Making it 90 cents. That 90 cents is passed on and taxed. Turned to 80 cents. The final result is zero. In the end, the government makes 100% of all money, and we lose it as we purchase things and have our income taxed. Trading money within an economy is having your right hand give your left hand 10 dollars. But by the time your left hand gets it, it gets taxed to 5 dollars. Which is less than what you started with. Dependency on government cannot last. As it will result in 100% government control of the people.We aren't North Korea. But dependency will lead us their...

The victory is in the process of becoming better. Not the end goal.

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

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

Do Laws Really Affect Anything?

Laws affect nothing, people that want to commit crimes break the laws to do so

Can we take a moment to imagine a world without laws? What are your first thoughts? Murder? Thievery? Monopolies? Why is the first place we think of is crime?



Fear tactics, fear is used to create laws, meaning the law will not be respected, as cooperation built out of fear only creates followers as long as the fear lasts. Look at gun control, common debate points are, "If we don't ban all weapons, our children will continue to die". (When perhaps the people dying would not have died if they had been armed and capable of defending them self) But laws prevent that from happening, gun laws prevent people from using self defense, if the law were honest, it wouldn't say "preventing criminals from obtaining guns", when they're criminals. They wont obey the laws. If the laws were honest, they would say what they really do. "This gun ban law will remove guns from all who legally obtained a gun through the state verification process as they are listed in the state, criminals will keep their guns as their weapons are not registered with the state". Laws restrict those only living according to the law. Meaning those obeying the law have less rights than criminals. Laws restrict forms of self defense, you are allowed to defend your self if defense is on your property, within your home, if you have taken a significant amount of physical damage, if threats were made against you, if you do not use a firearm, if you hit the attacker only while he face you, if he broke into your home, if there are witnesses that see the fight based in your favor, and if the court agrees with your stance against the criminal. If those are met, you are then allowed to defend yourself, where if you don't obey the law, if you're being attacked, you defend yourself, its that simple. Looks like the criminals have more freedoms than citizens abiding by the law.

Now, what happens if someone in power becomes corrupt? They now not only have all the power, they can create corrupt laws that law biding citizens must follow. Look at the laws Hitler passed. It was illegal to hide or assist Jews. Or that blacks may not get an education. The idea of having corrupt laws passed is one of my biggest fears, I live according to the law and obey it, making bad laws forces individuals to break the law and become criminals. If an unjust law were set by a corrupt official, presented it as moral and mislead the majority to fall for it, we then have corrupt laws that punish those who once followed the law. Its far too easy to get caught with your pants down by stupid meaningless laws that do nothing but complicate things, raise the states income by catching someone standing in the wrong place, (which is real and called loitering) drinking unprocessed milk that you got from your cow on your farm is illegal, drinking a beer in the doorway of a bar is legal, lean one inch out and its public intoxication, hey in some states its illegal to create a user ID with a fake name and email! But you would never know, no one looks up their states laws every month to make sure article C of subsection 74-1 hasn't been modified to make an every day act illegal.

This leads me to question the true nature of laws, with each years brings only more laws, more restrictions and more regulation ON PEOPLE, these laws do not affect those putting them in place. Why would we need so many unnecessary laws that are so small such as standing, to big laws that allow the state to define how someone may defend them self? Killing someone has over 20 versions. That's wrong, killing someone outside of self defense is murder. But we place some murder above other, was it pre meditated? Or in cold blood? Did he know the person? Or was he a stranger? There is so much wrong with classifying some killing to be not as bad as other ways. "Well he killed that guy, but in cold blood, lets lighten his punishment", no, that doesn't make sense. To kill someone is to kill someone. But maybe its because I believe that hypocrisy is bad, and that corruption should be avoided.

While bringing up hypocrisy, laws ironically created the black market. Let me tell you what the black market is. It is true capitalism, real free markets, and zero regulations.
- Lets start with capitalism, you make money in a transaction, you keep it. Well that seems fair. Competition that lets more than one company enter the fold at making money. Meaning even you communists will get a kick out of this, as by government not taxing the mom and pop stores land, lights, power, water, sales, permits and income, there would be Wal-Marts, and mom and pop stores, because everyone is welcome in it. Meaning everyone gets an equal shot. What we see in America is NOT capitalism, its a disgusting nearly unrecognizable form of it, where the government helps only the largest companies. Meaning no one gets an equal shot.
-Now, onto real free markets. The black market is run on trade and supply and demand. Meaning if someone needs something, someone will see that need, meet it by providing said service, and will then make money. Making all involved better off. The seller wants money, so he makes something someone wants, that someone has money he wants to give for what the seller has, they make a voluntary trade, both parties win, its simple and beautiful! Also, if someone steals something, the seller will warn the other sellers to avoid that potential threat. Discouraging acting unlawful without placing any laws! And no, this can not be abused as they will have a database of transactions to check and see if its true or not. If a business wont pay a wage that seems fair, his workers may leave and find work ANYWHERE, as the government does not hold them back with paperwork and permits, the business will either allow work for the poor which will pay homeless to work, then giving them the money they need, allow kids to get jobs (if they want) and make money for that new Xbox coming out, while teaching them a lesson in responsibility, will force the business to pay more by lack of production, or even further use free markets by finding someone selling a service to help his! Which creates endless jobs, endless jobs! No government bureaucracy preventing all new comers. Not to mention the third party system that will track transactions like Bitcoin does, which will quickly show who is trust worthy and who isn't, thus losing their customers and naturally shutting down corrupt work places, and because it isn't of centralized origin, each place will have their own list to further prevent hacking.
-Here we go, regulations..."Well, they aren't great, but we need them!" No we don't... We need common sense laws like the NAP. Pollution? That's against human rights, no go. Slave labor? That's against human rights, no go. Monopoly? That's against human rights, no go. Buying out a business and forcing them to close? Not voluntary? Against human rights, no go. Forcing someone to buy your product? Not voluntary? Against human rights, no go. False claims to ownership or copyright infringement? Lying is an immoral act. Against human rights, no go. See? The world naturally takes care of itself with very basic laws that promote individual human rights. The black market is FLOURISHING ALL THE TIME. Why? No laws, no regulation, no government.

The more I study politics, the more I find myself agreeing with anarchists. "Oh they want no cops", no, it allows the free market to create jobs for private security firms that will make police and create jobs. "I don't like the idea of privatized cops, its just some guys with guns that stop crime", what makes regular cops any different? Nothing. Anarchism seems to be true freedom, true equal justice, and true forward progression for a society. The idea of giving one man power to run a country, and the strength of a military is utopian. "Anarchy will have people killing each other in the streets" why? Whats stopping them now? If you haven't noticed, laws are broken every day, if someone wants to commit a crime they are going to. A law will not stop them. And lets be completely honest, in this modern society, where every person in America understands the basic fundamentals of the concept to not hurt someone, why would a soccer mom begin killing toddlers with a baseball bat because there is no law telling her not to? She knows that killing will result in her own death, or loss of freedom and rights. If a criminal wanted to kill someone, do you think he would not kill them because the law? If that's true, why do people still kill? They break the law, the law does not stop criminals, it removes the human right to self defense and freedoms. What stops criminals is them knowing that they may be hurt, punished or killed, the only way to do that is to let people defend themselves in the same way as the police protect the president, the most efficient way, with a gun. Otherwise we are declaring that some human life is better than others. Laws are simply used to better control people, why can't we place laws over the government? In the free market, its immoral for a company to force you to buy their product, where government is allowed to force you, what if Wal-Mart forced you to buy their product? Not to mention that makes it impossible to gain truthful statistics. Saying government run anything is or can be successful is a lie. You cannot say a business is doing well if it forces everyone to buy from it or they will arrest them. Those are false statistics, show me a voluntary based government, then tell me your stats, until then, quit waving your Canada in my face. The wait times there are so horrendous people die waiting. People go in because their arm fell asleep, if you can see a doctor for anything, every hypochondriac would be wasting time seeing them for an eyelash in their eye while they force 300 people to wait for their arthritis to be checked. Forced participation is not participation. The government uses force because without forced participation, it would cease to exist, meaning it is not needed. The government needs people to survive. People do not need government to survive. That is a fact.

I'm not an anarchist yet... But I do believe in a zero government controlled economy, "anarcho-capitalism". Now remember. If it isn't voluntary, its force, if its force, its immoral, and if you agree with immoral actions, I then have the right to break your nose, as immoral actions are acceptable to you.
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