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.

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