But IRS stole more money from American citizens during the 1900’s.
Planned parenthood has killed more and stole more of our money for harmful uses than any other. Even the military times 1000 in every war.
Planned Parenthood helps accelerate abortions. That’s one of the biggest problems out there if not the biggest as you can’t have freedom if you were never born in the first place.
But is Planned Parenthood and CPS that closely connected?
Their staff seem to party (get drunk) together.
They are all funded by US.
They all make their living abusing or killing our kids.
One or both loving US citizen parents stand in the way of them doing their job.
Some see them as just another tax payer funded part of the “domestic violence cult” where someone makes a false DV accusation then which combination of government services shall we use to profiteer off harming you and your loved ones.
Abortions are funded through the tax payers via help from the IRS who helps collect the money to then pay for these inhumane services.
Great point. Part of the same Octopus.
Joey what you’ve posted was completely insane, and at minimum subservient to globalism. We do not protect the freedom to do socially destabilizing actions that have victims beyond the bad actor. We merely tolerate actions that harm the actor themselves, for two reasons.
First because the cost of preventing free-will is extremely high, so without actual victims beyond the actor in question, any enforcement wouldn’t exceed the cost. What does this mean? It means that in such a situation, doing nothing would be cheaper and still produce better results. This highlights the costs of bad governance, it is both expensive and ineffective.
Second because individuals themselves know the best way for them to live at any time, and they do change as they get more experienced with life. This is why clubs are chock full of people in their 20’s but have much less people in their 30’s and 40’s.
In other words we enforce laws because it is necessary to maintain a society in harmony, the cost of non-enforcement of things like rape and murder exceeds the costs of enforcement. We have clear victims, without as much established black market for organized crime to prosper. The case for enforcement is clear, in regard to those explicitly violent examples.
Next the only reason I oppose another crackdown is because it won’t get the public support it needs, and it will be rolled back, we didn’t all get born yesterday. We’ve seen this script play out for many decades now, it isn’t sustainable and it doesn’t work. When a government wastes a pile of money on corruption, nobody should be surprised when people prefer cutting all money, EVEN when a sliver gets used for something they do want. Ironically that example it is less destructive than what the state is asking law enforcement to do now.
In the case of law enforcement, that means we have a lawless cesspool in the desert, and everybody pretending to care about is a lying cretin. … because if they did care about it even a little, they’d have removed those progressive poison pills.
They are asking, “we’ll don’t you care that kids are being victimized? you sure you don’t want us, with all our brokenness helping”
I say no, not until policing is restored to the respected and honourable task it must be to function. Which cannot ever occur until we get prohibition off the books. We see this dichotomy play out everywhere in every shrill crisis, the scam is getting old. In the meantime we need to raise our children as best as possible, and push back on interests trying to exploit our misery for their own benefit. You know why? Interests that exploit our misery, will also intentionally create misery whenever they’re served by doing so. This too has had a destabilizing and infuriating effect on social order, and things now must be corrected or the citizenry will start raining hell upon the earth.
“If you want the best for your kids, put your marriage first.”
There is a political theory that people will regulate themselves during anarchy (freedom) through natural law. Like if someone harms others then their society will naturally stop them.
@joey seems right with the classical definition.
freedom - the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
If you want to promote anarchy, instead of a national government, how convenient is it that you have trans-national institutions ready to govern without those pesky citizens to get in the way?
I will not submit to an order the majority of us neither consented nor held to account. I won’t accept being forced into a new order either, when it is detrimental to our interests. You’re selling a utopian ideology, and like all utopian ideologies it is deceptive and totalitarian. The true goal is to eliminate the national governments, so that an unaccountable technocracy can rule us from afar.
Absolute freedom must be limited when necessary to preserve Liberty, especially the freedom to form an even more oppressive global order, just to give an example. Who decides when it is necessary? technocrats? No “the people” as a nation decides. Nations are the only thing that can prevent the new dark age upon us, yet you offer nothing but their removal?
@cyberpunkspike is promoting globalism as they agree that, and I quote from what you wrote, “Absolute freedom must be limited when necessary” and that is what depopulation programs are all about as you can limit it by limiting people and globalists trick people into thinking that they are involved in voting, making decisions, when they are not in some ways. It’s good to be involved as long as you really are and globalists trick us into imitations of the real things that we long for and we sometimes don’t know any better when we are not familiar with real freedom. I promote anarchy as much as I can but we don’t live in anarchy and we never will live in anarchy or in a perfect utopia through the lens of socialism while being not perfect. We have to struggle. We have to fight. That is how things get better. That is what the three or four branches of American government is all about, that fight for balance. Everything else has been failing for centuries and we all should admit to those facts of how things are in the real world.
Absolute freedom limited means you can’t indiscriminatingly commit violence against fellow citizens. It means you recognize the need for rule of law. Nowhere does it imply depopulation, because the nation combined with the state means it must answer to a citizenry, no citizenry would ever condone such an elitist anti-human program. The most severe examples in human history of states run amok, all betrayed their nations in the name of nationalism, it was a severe perversion. Regardless that risk of an out of control state is why the US constitution outlined a list of restrictions on state power, but ultimately only a nation can ensure it is respected.
No national citizens voted in the IMF, how’s your voting equals… something? Theory explain their power? The anarcho-whatever-termyoulikemost is an anti-nationalist and totalitarian ideology, as it fails to consider the desires of existing power within our material world. States will be held accountable, either the state answers to a nation with its citizens, or it answers to trans-national investors. There is no other choice, because the market will demand a state to mediate. If we magically destroyed all states, one or more would rise to fill the political vacuum.
I promote liberty as much as I can, but like Jefferson I recognize that without a nation and its people the elitists will steal it from us. If one of us is the globalist, I’d put my money on the anti-nationalist. Globalists have promised a world of liberty, complete with a world of peace, I assert they’ve failed to deliver on either.
@cyberpunkspike, can I indiscriminately or discriminately murder you or rob from you? Murder is excessive violence. People are murdered still, regardless of whether murder is legal or illegal. Laws can be good but absolute power corrupts absolutely and who enforces the laws? People are not good which means that the laws they make can be, potentially, occasionally, not perfect, problematic, counterproductive, etc. I’m for nationalism over globalism. I’m for anarchy. I’m for minimalism. I’m for a non-crony capitalism competition free market representative constitutional republic over a mob-ruling democracy.
I’m for free markets and not crony capitalism. I’m against fake free markets that desire state intervention which you mentioned. Yes, you are right about how power rises in the absence and vacuum of no power as seen in the Middle East and I don’t disagree with that and I’m not advocating for vacuums. I’m for states. I’m for anarchy and for states. Yes, I know it sounds like I’m contradicting myself. It’s a paradox. I believe in letting people decide whether or not they want to be independent and alone (anarchy) or to be apart of a state. But even while in your nation, you can try to have solar power and independence and other things as much as possible.
Globalism promotes the idea of the need to censor, to stop people from excessive violence, etc, etc. It sounds like you are promoting what Facebook does, the pursuit to criminalize pre-crime as seen in that movie, Minority Report and also in Judge Dredd.
@joey some might say there is always some level of anarchy in the wild west. I am just “vote less government.”
@AOC, I agree. When I say anarchy, I mean vote less gov. I mean what you mean but I use different words to describe it. I want less gov. That’s why I weaponize the anarchy word as anarchy does not exist and cannot exist. But the pursuit of anarchy shrinks government.
Individuals break laws, we are talking about when we must still enforce, and the answer as I’ve properly explained is when the cost doesn’t exceed the benefits. None of this means individuals don’t murder, they still do, but they must stand trial before the people.
Just to be clear, Facebook believes in the state, but not the nation. You by contrast believe in neither the state nor the nation, so what is it you both have in common?
This is a most excellent conclusion to consider, I assert it is just the opposite. That since sometime around the beginning of the Carter era, or possibly somewhat before, this has been the dominant globalist position. The left accurately calls it neo-liberalism, though they offer something insane as a solution, they believe a state should be involved in all aspects of public life. By contrast the neo-liberalists appear to advocate for no state in public life, yet as we can all plainly see the state still grows.
I explained WHY that is, and WHY your position was induced to neutralize our ability to forge a new path. To nuetralize the potential of self-governance. As we can all plainly see, the state remains stronger than before… but what was lost? THE NATION.
The conception of the state both “sides” fight about is a globalist state, unaccountable to the citizenry. It is NOT for technocrats to decide for what or how the state must be, it is for the people to decide, and ONLY through the nation are the people capable of any decision. This is why they advocate against all nations. This is not to say that the nation is the penultimate expression of the people’s will, but only that it has been the best existing expression known thus far.
It doesn’t joey, it never did. The pursuit of “anarchy” produces what we see today, an out of control state without a citizenry able to stop it. It is the elimination of all liberties for all people, except for those powerful enough to influence the state. It is a world of arbitrary laws for all of us, and a world without laws for our masters. It produces powerful states without nations, not the stateless utopia you think it leads towards. I want you to read what I wrote, each specific point, and have a real discussion about this.
“I’m for anarchy and for states”
EXACTLY, this contradiction exposes the anti-nationalist character of your ideology. You offer each person the possibility of being the master or the slave. The ubermencen who control the state, or the plebeians subjected to the consequences of a path we didn’t determine.
The concept of nation doesn’t even exist in your worldview, separated from the concept of the state, this is the sign of a globalist ideology. You believe in states but not nations, this is tyrannical, and the possibility of being nationless and sans-state is impossible in our material world. Thus what you offer is exactly what we already have, and we despise it with every breath of our being.
There is only one possible outcome from this, first states grow that answer to no nation’s citizenry. Then as we get increasingly enraged, we finally grab the wyverns flying above by their tails and hurl them upon the earth with enough force to break their necks on impact.
You fight for a nonsense contradiction, while you empower those you claim to oppose. By contrast I fight for a national citizenry, so that we can finally defeat our enemies. We will cage the wyverns, so that we can restore Independence and sovereignty, and with that liberty and equality before the law.
They should send the Juggalo Clown Posse there too.
@cyberpunkspike, don’t we already have national citizenry and how do we improve that? How do we get rid of the swamp? What happens when the swamp comes back? Should Trump do what Obama did with executive orders in making decisions and in increasing the power of the federal government which can help us right now until the wrong person gets their hands on that power, right? When I say anarchy, I mostly mean a focus on free markets, the first amendment, and especially the 2nd, the right to bear arms. Family First. Local communities second. Country third. These three things work together. Priorities. Focus. Common Goals.