Search results for query: *

@hugh damright: The first part of your statement is correct insofar as history supports the notion that monarchy is much less intrusive in the private lives and liberties of individuals than democracy has been. As far as I am concerned, this is self-evident, but I invite you to investigate...

I stand corrected. I still consider the term to be an oxymoron. Furthermore, it's imprecise: governments are not free, people are. But your point is taken. This assertion has been challenged on numerous occasions, most notably by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his book "Democracy: The God That...

I think you made this definition up, because I've never heard the term before, anywhere. It is an oxymoron, as far as I am concerned. In this day and age, when most people don't know what "freedom" and "liberty" really are, the term "free government" might actually make sense in a warped way...

What the eff is "free government"? The the second amendment exists precisely to make sure the people have ready access to the level of force required to put down the government when (not if; WHEN) it begins to infringe on personal liberty. It isn't to defend government, it's to destroy...

Two responses: Try committing an act contrary to legislation you don't agree with. Then, when you get arrested, try asking the government to expatriate you instead of imprisoning you. Let me get my earplugs before they start laughing, though. ;) Why isn't going back on my property...

Is this in theory or in practice? Because you'd be wrong in both cases. In practice, the 2nd amendment protects nothing. The mere fact that I need a license to carry issued on the basis of some arbitrary criteria not mentioned in the 2nd amendment is a pretty clear indication to me that the...

(Edit: disregarding "taking over") I disagree. Theoretically, if a government strips you of your rights in a way you consider unjust, you should have the power to nullify that judgment unilaterally. E.g., if the government decides you are no longer a fit person and considers you stripped of...

@NineseveN: You are absolutely right. Do what I do, and just vote against the incumbent in every election. If the incumbent is running unchallenged, write yourself in. It doesn't accomplish much, but it makes me feel better. And that's all that voting really does anyway: make people feel...

This was exactly the point I was trying to make, in a much more readable way. Good job. :) Kyle

I think we're muddying the issue: the OP presupposes that possessing and maintaining nukes would be a rational thing for a person to do in a society in which such things were allowed. I assert that it wouldn't be: it simply would not be allowed in our top-down society, where the state has a...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/16/D8KPTQSG1.html This is what "common good" sounds like to me. Note that the Republicans are no better nowadays: each party defines what is "good" a little differently, but champions the same approach (slavery) to achieving it. Cheers, Kyle

Pardon me if this has been covered before. How do you reconcile the following two judgments: (1) Accepting responsibility for your own self-protection; recognizing that relying on the state for that protection is foolish; and asserting that any government restriction on your ability to...

With a Republican president and a Republican congress, why shouldn't we have expected the passage of nationwide CCW reciprocity? We may never get that chance again, given that the GOP has alienated its entire base with its new socialist (read: neoconservative) agenda. I have a feeling I'll...

Where's "None"? No gun laws are legitimate. For that matter, no gun legislation is legitimate. ;) (Laws being something in nature meant to be discovered, legislation being those edicts that Congress passes, you know.) Cheers, Kyle

The problem is that this is inevitable: when people give some group the legitimacy to steal from and remove the rights of others without reprisal, eventually this power will be used to the greatest extent that will not eliminate that legitimacy. The American experiment worked acceptably for...

This is the wrong question. The right question is, "Should someone be allowed to steal my property with the help of a group of armed thugs?" If that group of armed thugs were anyone but the government, you would say "no." I say "no" all the time. We are not that far apart, so my natural next...

This is what many people refer to as "cognitive dissonance." Do you want big government with a lot of power over people (whether exercised for "good" or not) or not? A government powerful enough to take Microsoft to court for abusing its "monopoly" (you know, the one consumers gave it for...

As much as I disbelieve that this is possible with any government that can employ force to enforce obedience, I have to say, "hear, hear!" A little less hypocrisy would go a long way toward restoring some of our lost liberty. Kyle

Yes, but the rules are determined by the person who owns the space. In the case of a home, that person is the homeowner, who will set the rules by which the household is to be run, and if the other inhabitants don't like it, they can leave. Effectively, this is the way households are run...

Let's face facts: the constitution is just a pretty piece of paper, nothing more. It doesn't mean anything anymore, and hasn't since at least 1916, possibly 1865. (1916 = federal reserve, income tax, gold exchange standard, and direct election of senators; 1865 = membership in the US no longer...