Posted by & filed under Editorials.

I have always referred to myself as a conservative (in my adult life,) but lately, I just don’t seem to like the term. I believe in freedom. I don’t believe in freedom under control of wise masters. I believe in the works of the people at Mises.org - in anarchism (the lack of rulers.) I think each person should be the exclusive owner of themselves, their work, and their property. All exchanges should be voluntary and the only law should be natural law (or God’s law if you prefer): the non-aggression axiom.

Conservatives don’t believe in those things. They are against socialism, or at least what talk radio hosts tell them is socialism, but they are for government run schools, medicare, social security, foreign aid, a standing army, etc. They are full of internal contradictions.

The latest illustration of this is the ongoing drug debate and the recent developments in Colorado. This has brought out the prohibitionist conservatives and they are going on and on about the evils of drugs and the necessity of government bans, or what I call responsibility socialism. They fail to realize that the fundamental principle their arguments rest upon is the exact same thing that progressives use to argue for their government enforced programs, such as welfare, universal healthcare, and gun bans.

It’s hard to describe this precisely so I decided to just come up with some examples to illustrate what I’m talking about.

Here’s a sample conversation with a progressive:

Me: So you think we should ban guns?

Prog: Yes! Guns are dangerous and nobody has a real reason to have them. They should be banned!

Me: So you want to arrest and imprison people for the act of owning a gun?

Prog: If they don’t get rid of it, yes! We have to make society safer, for the children.

Me: I don’t think that’s morally right. People should be able to own whatever they want, even if it is dangerous. If they use the gun to then commit a crime, then we should punish that, but only that.

Prog: That sounds all nice, but are you seriously suggesting someone should be able to own a machine gun? How about a bazooka?

(on and on – I could continue but that’s not the point of this post)

Here’s a sample conversation with a conservative:

Me: So you think we should ban drugs?

Con: Yes! Drugs are dangerous and nobody has a real reason to have them. They should be banned!

Me: So you want to arrest and imprison people for the act of owning a drug?

Con: If they don’t get rid of it, yes! We have to make society safer, for the children.

Me: I don’t think that’s morally right. People should be able to own whatever they want, even if it is dangerous. If they use the drug and then commit a crime, then we should punish that, but only that.

Con: That sounds all nice, but are you seriously suggesting someone should be able to own crack cocaine? How about Heroin?

(you get the picture)

Do you see how the logic is exactly the same? These people identify something as bad, and so they come to the conclusion that the answer is then to use the collectivist force of government to remove it from society, via banning it. Never-mind the fact that prohibition never works, why do these people think it is their right to dictate to other people what they can and can’t do? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

So, I can’t call myself a conservative. I don’t think WWII and the 1950′s were the ultimate in freedom, but quite the opposite. I don’t think the government should parent people for their own good. I don’t think people should be serfs and appoint masters every so often via popularity contest.

What am I? I’m an anarchist. People should be personally responsible for their lives, in all aspects. Collectivism is the disease of humanity. You cannot eliminate immorality through collective action any more than you can eliminate hunger or poverty. If only conservatives would realize this, we might actually get somewhere.

Posted by & filed under Clips.

“The social contract is present in our everyday lives. It’s the reason I hold the door for strangers upon entering or exiting a store. It’s why I tip the waiter or waitress when I dine-out. Its why I don’t needlessly curse at strangers or intentionally block people’s paths. The more I abide by the social contract of my respective society, the more society includes me. The more I disregard the social contract, the more society recants its openness towards me. We all unconsciously acknowledge the social contract day-by-day and hour-by-hour when we thank friends, family, and strangers for everyday actions. ‘Thank you’ was originally a verbal acknowledgment of being socially indebted to someone. The constant exchange of verbal acknowledgements of indebtedness through favors, gifts, and trade creates a complex network of social debts that acknowledges everyone owes and is owed something in society. Reciprocity is the foundation of society. Social contract is the corollary of mankind’s high propensity to cooperate, to interact, and to trade. At no point can one argue the coercive nature of a nation-state is at all comparable, or part and parcel, to the cooperative nature of society. The relationship between state and society has never been one of reciprocity, thus rendering the state non-compliant with the social contract, therefore terminating the state from the social contract completely. There is no social contract binding us to the state because it refuses to abide by the simple terms of the social contract: cooperation and reciprocity.”

h/t Thomas J. Michie VII of We the Individuals

Posted by & filed under Editorials.

Last night was just plain embarrassing. Our defense looked soft, but honestly it wasn’t their fault. Our offense just flat out handed that ballgame to FSU in the first quarter, and didn’t do anything the rest of the game to make up for it.

How could this happen? Well we don’t have much of a running game and we rely pretty much 100% on Tajh Boyd. So if he’s off a little bit, and we’re playing the #5 team in the country…. well there you go.

I’m not happy with the way the defense played but let’s be honest with ourselves: we’re not a defense-minded, shut the other team down kind of football team. We play football like a fast-break offense basketball team: we try to run the other team to death, score lots of points, and tire the opposition out. Our defense isn’t meant to dominate and shut down other teams, just to slow them down enough that our offense can outscore them. Our offense spotted the FSU 14 points to start the game, so the defense gets a pass. The defense responded and got us some pretty good field position actually, but the offense totally squandered it.

I think this all comes back to our offensive style and the architecture of the entire team. FSU played physical offense and physical defense. There was no trickery, they put the fullback in there and ran on us at will. No fancy formations, no reverses, no gimmicks. That’s how you play football and dominate, and that’s just not what we do.

Games like last night are why I just can’t get excited about Clemson Football any more. I used to write more about it, but my hopes have been crushed for years by Tommy Bowden and now Tommy 2.0 (Dabo Swinney). So long as we have this bitch mindset of trickery and gimmickery on offense, we’re going to suffer losses like this the first time we face a strong defense. So every year that we start out great and our offense racks up big stats against crappy teams, everyone else that is a Clemson fan is just giddy as can be, and here I am the sour-puss, trying to talk some sense into them. I guess the positive is that I’m not really that devastated from last night… I pretty much expected it.

Hopefully one day Clemson will hire a real coach and stop all of this bullshit. There is no school in the ACC that should be able to out-recruit Clemson, no matter who the coach is, based on our school, environment, fan base, facilities, traditions, etc. We should dominate, and we would dominate if we just had a coach that taught good old fashioned football.

Posted by & filed under Clips.

Dana Holmes was arrested in May on a DUI charge to which she pleaded guilty. However, she never could have known what would be in store for her when she arrived at the LaSalle County Illinois jail.

Holmes is alleging that she was illegally strip searched, when officers reacted to her moving her leg during a pat down. The video shows her move her leg slightly when officers quickly react and restrain her, then they throw her to the floor. After securing her, they then carry her into a padded cell, strip off her clothes and leave her lying there naked and alone.

Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/outrage-officers-rip-womans-clothes-leave-naked-cell-floor-video/

Posted by & filed under Clips.

Officer detains and threatens to arrest an entire family because they asked him to stop blocking their driveway

No deaths this time, thank goodness. That’s probably because witnesses stopped and watched as the entire thing happened. Who knows what drugs would have been found on their dead bodies had there not been witnesses.