DON’T CALL ME DADDY

164482283Editorial by Barbara Proctor.

Syndicated from Barbara Proctor’s personal blog.

Many Christians (substitute «liberal», «conservative», «American», «Muslim», or whatever box you are close to and this whole rant will work just as well) are guilted into believing that by failing to toe the party line and check all the boxes on the policy card handed out by the neo-Christian-conservative political policy makers makes you somehow disloyal to God. It’s like those Facebook memes that say if you don’t share a picture of Jesus on a social website whose sole purpose is to figure out what you want so they can sell it to you, then you don’t love God. It’s rank manipulation. Don’t fall for it.

There are many issues on the ticket. Evolution, blind trust in «authority», gay marriage. But Jesus removed the priesthood from the mix. It is now only Him and The Spirit between you and God. You don’t have to call anybody else «Daddy.»

It’s ok to say that lesbians being married doesn’t hurt you, and it doesn’t threaten your Christianity.

Take a minute to look at the two women featured in this article from The Ticket, then explain to yourself (don’t explain to me, it’s not my business) how letting them have a piece of paper from the courthouse just like you have makes your life any less meaningful, your marriage less valuable, your devotion to God any less real or makes this country any less strong. If you still believe it, then vote your heart. (My heart says, «View with horror and disgust any piece of legislation that attempts to control through mob rule the personal details of individual lives.») But I’m skeptical you can honestly say God wants you to be wrapped around a pole about this.

It’s ok to make up your own mind. There will always be people who will build a box for you to live in so that you will be just like them; I assume it’s so they can feel validated in their opinions. Doesn’t mean you have to get in it.

There will always be people who build a box for you so that you will be exactly like all other people they’ve decided you must be indistinguishable from and demand that you conform to it. I assume it’s so they can feel validated in their distrust for people who aren’t like them.

Still doesn’t mean you have to get in it.

NEW ALTERNATIVE SOCIAL MEDIA KINGPIN?

logoArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

Recently, a new social media site was launched, called Awareness Act.  It seems to be modeled loosely after Facebook, with some notable differences.  Every members’ updates are plugged into a general feed.  It has a page dedicated to news articles.  There’s some kind of point system.

As of writing this, I am trying to get in contact with the web designer and get more details on how the website works, and what his vision for the site is.  It is targeted toward those who are unhappy about Facebook’s tendency to sell users’ information and block pro-freedom users.  As of writing this, there are over 1,095 members worldwide, and growing quickly (yesterday, there were some 300 or so).

This is an exciting development, and I will continue to follow this story as it develops.

In the meantime, I have an account there, now.  I encourage you all to get memberships and add me.

Rasskazivats on Awareness Act.

TDJ SING-ALONG: RIP TIDE (SICK PUPPIES)

Editorial by Mark I Rasskazov.

This song is part of a series, which I periodically update (when I feel like it), which I call the “TDJ SING-ALONG;” a series of commentaries about songs I find appealing, and which help me illustrate the Transegoist ideology. Sing along if you know the words!

Untitled
SICK PUPPIES — RIP TIDE

You all hate your children;
They’re too fat to feed.
You’re on medication —
Taking pills to sleep;
I think I’m doing just fine,
Compared to what you’ve been doing.
I won’t get vaccinated;
Insurance costs too much.
You think you’re so persuasive —
But I’m not giving up.
Saving my life:
It’s not what you’re doing.

I!!!

I won’t justify
The way I live my life.
‘Cause I’m the one living it;
Feeling it, tasting it,
And you’re just wasting your time
Trying to throw me a line,
When you’re the one drowning.
I like where I’m at on my back,
Floating down in my own riptide.
The water is fine.

I like to step on cracks;
I go against the odds.
You think my world is flat…
Do I turn you on?
Maybe, yeah, I’m wrong,
But I like where I’m going.
I leave when others stay,
I never re-decide,
I don’t mind if you wait,
But I don’t waste my time!
Crazy is just fine.
‘Cause I like where I’m going.

I remember when it used to be easy.
I remember when it wasn’t so hard.
I remember when it used  to be easy.
I remember when, I remember when…

I don’t know if these guys know the truth, but they certainly have a feel for it.  Does someone think they know better than you how to live your life?  Make sure they know their place.  The corollary to «live and let live,» is «don’t put up with meddlers and power-peddlers.»

HOW THE CENSUS MESHES WITH BANKRUPT TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM

wikiriwhi-for-HCC-001Article by Tim Wikiriwhi.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

On the reoccurring theme of «What is the proper roll of government?» I submit to you a frank article about the New Zealand census.

Thomas Jefferson wrote “He who governs best governs least.” He penned the American Declaration of Independence, which actually defined what the proper duties of government are: to defend the God given rights of the individual, which is a very limited sphere of operation, which does not include the supply or control of such services as education, hospitals, arts and sports, etc, all of which are the proper sphere of free enterprise and private, voluntary associations.

It is because western society has forgotten such enlightened principles which motivated Jefferson and the founding fathers of America, and instead have adopted a totalitarian socialist conception of government where the prevailing belief is that all of life’s problems have political solutions, as a result of which, Western civilization teeters on the brink of absolute economic collapse and chaos.

Understand the gravity of the situation; the rationale that underpins the so-called justification for having the compulsory census.

tyrannyThe image above is the Cover picture from the Government Facebook page, Census NZ.

This image is case in point as to why the enlightened Kiwi is outraged by the underpinning arguments which Census NZ and the New Zealand government use to vindicate this compulsory violation of our privacy; i.e., that the information gathered will be used to for their «social planning.»

Bread and circuses, anyone?

Notice how this picture appeals to the unthinking: the «Government as the font of all culture; get someone else to pay for it» mentality.  «More drag strips, more skate parks, more gigs and festivals, more sports,» etc., ad nauseum.  Notice that it completely forgets to add: “More taxes, more rates, more debt, more compulsions and property violations, more government poking its nose into things which are not its business to be involved in!»

SCCZEN_A_180410NZHAGV807_460x230Now I like drag strips and concerts as much as anyone, yet I am not so stupid as to believe that these things are only possible via political interventions.  I also know that every time the government or city council builds a stadium or sports facility and events that they always run massively over budget and put us into massive debts, and, ultimately, end up costing rate payers and tax slaves tens of millions of dollars…every…time.

Three examples from my home town of Hamilton will suffice as examples:

The rugby stadium.
The V8 supercars.
The Claudlands event center.

Each of these cost Hamilton ratepayers many tens of millions of dollars over the price the Hamilton city council told ratepayers they would cost!

Via consecutive socialist meddling, the HCC has racked up $500 million in debts!

pigAnd what needs to be appreciated is that this bankrupt situation is the norm across the globe in Western socialist democracies; i.e., socialist politicians are systematically bankrupting their captive populations.  Debts are skyrocketing and rates are going through the roof, yet nobody seems to be waking up to the fact that city councils ought not to be involved in such ventures at all — they are best left to free enterprise and voluntary associations, which are much more realistic about how such things get built and on what scale.  Most importantly, they don’t demand money via compulsory taxations upon the community; i.e., little old ladies living on pensions don’t face rent increases or rates hikes to pay for the white elephants and delusions of grandeur which big mouth, big promising politicians spout at election time to get elected.

If the figures don’t add up, they don’t get built — its as simple as that.  I.e., economic reality prevails; not ridiculous socialist whim.

The sort of people whom support any sort of government involvement in such things are either ignorant, evil, or both.

The ignorant have not figured out that such things will return to haunt them via higher rates, rents, and costs for necessities in goods and services, and the evil don’t give a d@mn [expletive redacted] if people who don’t like rugby, etc., are forced to pay for new stadiums etc.; all they care about is having a flash new place to worship their sporting Gods.  They are too stupid to realize that better stadiums and facilities could be established via legitimate means without the use of draconian powers of compulsion.

Hamilton News points out that the publicly funded Claudland’s Event Center operates under a $1.42 million annual deficit; even as tax payers continue to express outrage of the V8 debacle.

The New Zealand Herald quotes City of Hamilton debt estimates as a result of the V8 debacle as being around $37.4 million, with a total municipal annual debt of around $100 million.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is currently running for mayor of the city of Hamilton, NZ, as the Libertarianz Party candidate.

FAIR TAXATION

iStock_money-tree

Editorial by Barbara Cornell.

Syndicated from Barbara Cornell’s personal blog.

Flat tax
Consumption tax
Corporate tax
Tax breaks for the rich

If you find yourself spending your time arguing about or concerning yourself with these topics, then you’ve allowed yourself to be duped.

The economy is a giant, circular river, and tax is a huge dipper that the government uses to remove water from the flow. It doesn’t matter where in the flow of the river you put your dipper, the effects are the same.

Pick a spot in the river and reason it through:

Taxes are increased to material suppliers. What now? They increase their prices to the manufacturers who buy their materials, who respond by increasing their prices to the retailers, who respond by increasing their prices to the consumer.

All taxes are eventually paid by the consumer. It doesn’t matter who «pays» the taxes directly to the government, eventually it is the consumer who absorbs the cost of all tax.

Arguing about whether it’s fair to tax or not tax based on purchases or gross income, or whether we should tax or not tax corporations before or after distributions, is missing the point.

The only way to reduce the actual burden of tax to anyone is to reduce the size and scope of government.

Arguing otherwise is allowing politicians to distract you from the truth.

THE TRANSIENCY OF LAWLESSNESS

Murray-RothbardArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

In the 1990s Russia experienced anarchy.  The Ruble experienced hyper-inflation, followed by the collapse of the Soviet super-state.  The country continued to have laws, yet they became completely unenforceable by virtue of their overabundance and massive corruption.  It became impossible to follow the rules and run a business or live a normal life, so the rules were simply universally ignored.  This was a time of legal ambiguity.  It was not long after the collapse of the Soviet state, that the «New Russians,» i.e. the Russian organized crime syndicates, took control of the streets and most businesses, large and small.  The people began to adapt to the power vacuum left behind by the Soviet government by engaging in direct barter and individual enterprises that simply ignored the absurd and unenforced laws of the land; yet not a year had gone by before gangs took control.  President Yeltsin tried, without success, to restore order while maintaining a free-market economy.  After three terms, he had managed to substantially slow the deterioration of the currency, and had established some order, yet the economy was still firmly in the hands of the Russian mob, and the government was powerless to stop them.  The man who finally was able to restore law and order was Vladimir Putin — a tyrant; yet, a moderate tyrant, by Russian standards.  You can now start a business in Russia — and I know some people who have.  You can run a business without fear of being shaken down by organized crime, and it is safe to walk the streets.  People have money, and people have some freedom of movement.  People are able to speak their minds — for the most part.  Yet, when it comes to big business, the largest companies are firmly under the control of the state, and media companies that criticize Putin frequently find themselves shut down or bought out.

This has been my personal experience with anarchy.

What is anarchy?

Anarchy is the absence of government.

What is government?

Government is the organized application of force.

Anarchy_Wallpapers__by_grazxNow, there are a number of ideas that go under the name, «anarchy,» such as anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, but the only genuine form of anarchism is anarcho-capitalism, a la Murray Rothbard, et. al.  The reason for this is that anarcho-capitalism is the only anarchic ideology that genuinely advocates for the abolition of any kind of continuous organized force.  All other anarchic ideologies simply apply the organization of force either to the workers, or to the local governments, or some group other than what is currently perceived of as being government; which does not abolish government, but simply alters which hands are at the helm of government.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERANow, anarchy, throughout history, and as I’ve seen personally, tends to be de facto anarchy, and not genuine anarchy, because it typically develops when there are rules which are in place, but they are generally not followed.  They are not followed, because that institution which used to be the government is no longer able to enforce them.  A law is a general, categorical directive backed by force, with the threat of punitive action.  If it can no longer be backed by force, then it ceases to be law in any practical sense.  The government need not succeed in applying punitive action in all cases for it to be law, but it must succeed in doing so a certain percentage of the time; to the extent that it creates a measure of pause among at least some of the population when they consider the idea of violating the categorical directive in question.  If a small group forcibly applies directives to its members — then it is a government, however small.  Pushing the issue down to communities or workforces, therefore, does not abolish government; it merely changes the organizational structure of it.  Anarcho-capitalism is the only form of government which excludes any kind of sustained organized force designed to apply categorical directives, and is thus unique in that it describes a genuine anarchical system.

thA state of true anarchy is difficult to sustain, because what usually happens is that violent men realize that they may organize together to apply force to other individuals to get whatever it is they want (commodities, power, women, land, etc.).  If they succeed in doing this, then they establish a tyranny.  If, on the other hand, the people, in turn, organize to resist them and protect their persons and their homes, and then establish an order which keeps the individuals and their properties secure from the initiation of force, then what emerges is a republic.  It is very difficult to maintain a state of anarchy without going in one of these two directions.

31Russia was an anarchy that swiftly devolved into an organized criminal tyranny.  Yeltsin attempted to establish a Republic, but, ultimately, was unable to stop the tyrannical rule of the gangs on the street.  Finally, Putin was able to wrest control from the criminals, yet his own system is far from being a pure republic.  It is a limited tyranny, which allows for some republican activities, so long as they do not pose any kind of threat to the status quo.  Now, I think that the takeaway is that people can only be free to the extent that they are capable of taking responsibility for themselves, and are willing and able to take it upon themselves to destroy a man, or group of men, who pose a threat to their persons, properties, and families; which means that they have to independently establish strong bonds with their fellow men, and be able to organize themselves very quickly.  Russia was unable to achieve true freedom, because they spent 70 years under Communism, and many hundreds of years under monarchy before that, and so their society never had to learn how to start a business and be self-sufficient.  This is something they’ve had to learn on the fly — and they’ve come a long way very quickly, but the reason their anarchic state has settled on a tyrannical system (albeit, a tyranny limited in scope), is because they have been behind the power curve on the concepts of individual responsibility and entrepreneurship.

Islamic-Welfare-StateIs anarchy possible to sustain?  Yes.  The Israelites in the Old Testament were able to sustain anarchy for hundreds of years under the prophets, but they did frequently have to organize themselves to stop an invasion, and they enjoyed a culture which promoted individual responsibility and social cohesion.  Anarchy is possible, but only for a society which consists of powerful and tightly knit people.  Perhaps one day we will be up to it, but at present, in my opinion, we are not.  Our culture is increasingly one of irresponsibility, alienation, and cowardice.  If we can return to a republican state; one in which our livelihood and safety must come from our friends, our families, and ourselves, and not the state, then perhaps our childrens’ children will be fit for this, but at present we are not.