Tag Archives: Theft

Accepting Evil

I was introduced to the concept of “evil” at a very young age. It was introduced to me through religious conservatism, as well as through television news. Both were saturated with incessant talk of evil things that people were doing all around the world. When my religion taught me that I was evil, when I watched “the news”, I equated my evil with their evil. I equated myself to the murderers on the television, even though I hadn’t killed anyone. If we’re all lost as sinners, then who cares about comparisons?

Just thinking about evil is exhausting. There is no way to create a perfect man. How do we “measure” ourselves as good? Or, better yet, is there value in measuring how “good” we are?

In the past, I would’ve said “Yes”. I measured my good (as well as the good of the whole world) to see who among us, including myself, was going to Heaven. But I never knew what that amount of good needed to get into Heaven was. But I measured away anyway, completely dissatisfied, as the only result I came up with was that “None of us are good enough.”

Well, my religious beliefs have changed over time. And so have my ideas about “good”. But evil still bugs me. I still notice it everywhere. I seem to notice it all of the time. I don’t think it is really possible to ignore it. Throughout the day, I think everyone will, at least one time throughout that day, say “Damn. That isn’t right.” Evil is simply too prevalent to ignore. Sure, when we’re playing with our kids, or reading a book, we aren’t thinking about someone getting raped or murdered in the world. But surely it’s happening. There will be no “end” to it until we die.

Since none of us are sure when we are going to die, and surely we don’t want to think about death constantly, what do we have to look forward to? Why does “looking forward” matter? What do we have but to “look forward”? We look forward as well as looking back. We pleasantly reminisce about the past, while being thankful for getting passed the negative times. We dread the future, while looking forward to what we believe we will enjoy about it. There’s no “constant settling point” with regards to the past and the future (besides the fact that we are alive in the present). There’s no “perspective” that ultimately takes precedent. The past, the present, and the future engage all of our minds. But there’s something special to be said about “moving on”. To hoping. And to just being thankful. You can’t be thankful for anything when your whole life is spent anxiously lamenting and condemning the lack of perfection in the present. Sadly, even this can be taken over by anxiety. There’s nothing that anxiety can’t ruin. It’s a shame.

I should state that, once again, I’m not against lamentation completely. Of course, I’m not completely (there’s that word again) against anxiety. Both serve important functions. But there’s a difference between compassionately bringing up a serious subject that needs attention, and being an asshole about it that no one wants to listen to (being an asshole, I should know this). The latter ultimately boils down to a fear of the lack of “perfection”. I think, ultimately, the motivation comes into play, as well as the “soundness” of one’s argument when one brings up an issue. Is it objectively an issue? That should be argued. After that, why are you bringing up the issue? That should be discussed as well. After those are discussed, it can then be determined whether or not the issue being put on the table is worth “tackling”. Even with this, there will, ultimately, be breakdowns in communication, as ends will conflict with ends, means will conflict with means, etc.

My solution to this is: do what you want. If you want to argue, then argue. If you don’t, then don’t. One can try to bring to the attention of others as many wrongdoings as one can. My measurement is “However many one wants to”. Does it bring you some sense of joy to bring a problem to light? Do you receive something from it psychologically? If so, bring it up. But if you do not gain anything from it, I think the whole situation is fruitless. The nurse that tends to others as a “duty” without getting any pleasure from caring for others is missing the point of her helping others. Of course, they are being helped. That’s important. But the issue is: why wouldn’t that bring one joy? That is the even deeper issue at hand. If one is compassionate, wouldn’t helping others out bring that person joy? (Personal Happiness as a Virtue).

I’m not being stabbed right now. That’s a good thing. I focus on doing things in the present. And that’s what we all do. We all go through our day, working our jobs, reading books, doing a whole range of actions without thinking of the people getting violently attacked throughout the world.

Many would see this as a bad thing. Many people spend their whole lives pointing out these wrongs. Indeed, I would have to say I’m included among these “Hey, this is bad” pointer-outers. Should it not be the case that each and every single one of us should point out each and every single wrongdoing that we are aware of constantly? Wouldn’t this be a good thing?

In the first place, most “moral” ideas never take into account man’s limited nature. Man has to sleep. Poop. I’m not going to be able to help a man getting stabbed while I’m asleep. Nor when I’m pooping. What if the murder is happening hundreds, if not thousands of miles away? What if I have to poop? Not only that, but even if I didn’t have to poop, am I really to fly all the way around the world, only to risk my own life to save someone else? I’d certainly find it noble if someone decided to do that themselves. But should I do it for the “overall good”?

I have reasons for not flying to Africa to help out, for example, someone getting murdered, or for not flying anywhere to help out anyone suffering any kind of injustice. Why? Well, I don’t want to spend the money on a plane ticket. Nor drive to the airport. Figure out where I’m going to stay once I got to wherever I was going. Not to mention, I’d, more than likely, be putting myself in danger. What if I, for example, get kidnapped? Who will help me? My point is that when it comes to “good” and “action”, there has to be some other way to think about it besides the “perfection” attitude: that everyone must spend all of their time and energy to combating every injustice in the world all at once until every justice is eliminated. That is impossible. But, more importantly, I don’t want to do it.

This, of course, does not mean that I am completely against helping out people in need. I, personally, am not going to go out of my way to search for people in need (I commend those that do), but if I see someone get hit by a car, I’d, of course, have no problem with dialing 911. It isn’t that I’m against any person receiving help at all, but I am against an attitude of “moral perfection”. Words like “perfect”, “complete”, etc., really can’t be applied to humans; especially when “good” is involved (this, of course, does not mean that punishment should never happen).

I learned a long time ago that nobody is perfect (I don’t think I learned it in a particularly healthy way). But I was asked “WWJD (What would Jesus do?)” I was taught that I should live a “Godly” life. I spent much of my life being worried over “doing enough.” But enough is enough.

There comes a point when we have to accept our own limitations. I certainly don’t ever think we should say “Welp, that man raped that lady and stole her purse. Oh well. What are ya gonna do.” In an immediate circumstance, when one becomes aware of a wrong, it is certainly commendable to try to “right” the wrong. And there’s various different ways to go about trying to “right a wrong”. But the key to this and what I mentioned earlier is anxiety. Anxiety relating to “perfection”. Of course, it is perfectly natural to feel anxious if one witnesses an attack. But why do you feel anxious? You feel anxious for your own safety, anxious about the health of the one attacked, anxious about the safety of anyone else that may happen to run into the attacker, etc. Anxiety isn’t the problem, but why are we anxious, and what are we anxious about?

“Moralistically”, “good” must be done because one is unsettled by the lack of perfection or perfect good. Any philosophical axiom based on “perfection” must be rejected. We are not God. We don’t have the strength of Superman, the speed of The Flash, etc. Perfection is a destructive goal. It becomes counter-productive. The purpose of doing good is that…well, it is just good. It spreads good will throughout humanity. Compassion is natural and genuine. But the idea of “perfection” waters down “compassion”. Imagine you are a nurse. There are one-hundred seriously injured people under your care, all wailing out in immense pain. “Good perfection”, besides being the case in one definition that no one would ever suffer anything negative ever, would require you to be able to at least completely alleviate the pain of all one-hundred patients instantaneously. This simply isn’t possible. The “ultimate good” would be that no one ever experience pain. The “perfectly good” action would be helping everyone at the same time. But these are, quite obviously, impossible. Striving towards an impossible goal is pointless. Life is not about “the struggle”. “The struggle” just exists: we don’t have to manufacture it. In fact, our whole lives are spent alleviating “the struggle”. If “the struggle” is such a noble idea, why do we all spend so much time trying to relieve ourselves from it? We naturally hate our human condition. Conservatives exacerbate this problem by perverting the human condition, and telling us that we must enjoy it: that God is “testing our faith”, and that we should “be thankful for it”. That our suffering gives us credit that we later redeem to God when we die to get into Heaven. (In addition, according to these same conservatives, there’s a billion little things that will take away this “credit”. I think the fact that we all naturally hate “the human condition” says a lot about these perverted conservatives). Liberals exacerbate the problem of the human condition by striving for perfection to pursue the good. They equate compassion with perfection: if we don’t spend every hour of every day fighting poverty, rape, and racism, then we aren’t doing enough good. And, once again, “enough” is only a complete elimination of poverty, rape, and racism.

The problem, once again, is one of “perfection”, or “the perfect good”. “Perfection”, “completeness”, etc., are words that should not be part of one’s ethical vocabulary. One can never be “completely good”, or “perfect”. “Good”, “helpful” action should never be based on perfection, but should rather be accepted as they are: as “good”, and as “helpful”. One man being saved from starvation is good, even if there are countless others that are, at the same time, not being saved from starvation. We must not lose sight of “the good” simply because we can never achieve “perfection”.

Of course, it is true that, in the Christian belief, perfection is required to be saved from eternal damnation. But it is also true that, in the Christian belief, Christ died as a forgiveness of sins as this perfect requirement. That is Christianity. Christianity is “Perfection is required. Welp, here you go. With love.” That’s it. That’s the “extent” of the “perfection”. A nurse can’t alleviate the severe pain of one-hundred patients simultaneously. I suppose God could. But what if He doesn’t? What is the nurse to do? Should she sit around “believing” that she can simultaneously alleviate the pain of all at once? Or should she focus on each patient, one at a time, doing what she can with compassion?

The thing “to do” is what you want. Eat what you want, read what you want, do what you want. If you want to do evil (besides the fact that you’d do it whether or not you had my approval, or anyone else’s), people are going to want to bring you to justice. I think that is the ultimate point of all of this. Expecting everyone to be a sheriff, an executioner, etc., is impossible nonsense. It is an impossible “moral” goal. Someone will want to bring murderers to justice. Someone will want to be a nurse. The key word is “want”. People’s wants will find a way to meet people’s needs; whether people “want” to get paid, or “need” medical care, things find a way to get done. Never perfectly, nor completely, but they happen enough to be significant enough to garner well-deserved positive attention.

This diversity of values truly is a testament to how peaceful coexistence can happen at all. We’ll go back and forth, arguing over how to increase “the good” and decrease “the bad”, but a perfect, complete elimination of “the bad” will never work.

True compassion does not need an anxious duty to ignite action.

“Perfect love casts out fear.”

My Christianity videos.




Free Will Contradictions.


The Apparent Disconnect Between Thinking and Acting.

Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland

Peace Requires Anarchy

By Joseph R. Peden

April, 1971 The Libertarian Forum [PDF]

Libertarians have often dreamed of escaping the tyranny of the State; some have sought to do so by seeking refuge in distant and uninhabited lands where they could live in solitary hermitage or in small communities held together by the principle of voluntary association and mutual aid. But historians know that such experiments seldom survive in peace for long; sooner or later the State finds and confronts them with its instinctive will to violence, its mania for coercion rather than persuasion, for compulsion rather than voluntarism. Such has been the fate of the Mormons and Mennonites, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Amish people, among others.

As exploited peoples all over the world are beginning to realize, their true enemy is always within their midst – the coercive violence of the State – and it must be fought constantly…

View original post 2,693 more words

How politicians get paid.



More politics.


Voluntarism and Capitalism.


Stefan Molyneux – The Truth About Voting

A very good video.

Anarchism and Capitalism.

An obvious example of one of the MANY logical contradictions in the world.

If being poor is justification for using violence against someone to take their stuff, then there shouldn’t be any police officers in these poor black communities that incur so many violent robberies.

If using violence to take someone’s property for yourself or to give to someone else is illegal from citizens, then it doesn’t change the principle just because the government says that it is legal.

The government does not have the objective authority to justly take the property from one person to give it to another person.

Government should do nothing but enforce the law of the land, and the law of the land should be the protection from and punishment of violence, and the enforcement of contracts.

There are very few things that legitimate, just governments have the authority to do (whether they give themselves the authority to do such or not), and none of these things can violate rights, or else they are unjust.

Rights are things that all human beings are naturally born with, their acquisition not dependent upon anyone else.

For example, “free speech” is a right, meaning that the government making a law preventing free speech is violating a human right.

But free speech does not mean that you can’t escort a screaming patron out of your bar: “free speech” involves what the government can’t do, but not what private property owners can’t do.

Property rights are also a human right. This one is more difficult to explain: free speech is protected as soon as one is able to begin speaking after they’ve learned to speak. But when does one first obtain property? This is a difficult question. There are some historical conflicts between what happened when Europeans came to America. Although it is accepted that many Europeans threatened Native Americans’ lives unless they surrendered their property, there is also evidence that Europeans and Native Americans lived in harmony at least in some communities. Regardless, this simple question arises with regards to property: when we think about humanity’s first existence (when we first came upon the Earth), how did we define property rights? That’s not an easy question for me to answer. After Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, how did we determine whose property was whose? This, of course, does not explain why property is a human right, but I’ll attempt to explain the logistics of it before I explain why it is a human right, and what it means that it is a human right. Let’s say that as Adam and Eve had children, and their children had children, that there was a conflict over a piece of land. Let’s say that two brothers each wanted a piece of land. If the land was previously unowned (in this case, since the number of humans was so small, only a claim for a particular piece of land meant that whomever claimed the land owned the land, with the obvious problem with this being if two people claimed the same land at the same time, which I’m discussing right now) then how would the two brothers whom each claimed that they owned the land settle their dispute? They could either try to kill one another, with the one remaining alive obtaining the land, although this is undesirable for obvious reasons. They could come to some sort of agreement between themselves that does not require the use of a third party, or they could agree to bring in a third party to settle their dispute. In either way, some sort of agreement must be reached non-violently, either among themselves or while bringing in a third party to settle the dispute.

So let’s say that this property dispute was settled, and let’s say that each of these two people decided to get half. What would happen if a third party came up and tried to make claim on the land? Here, the logic would remain the same:

Either the third party could attempt to peacefully negotiate with the now owners of the land, or he could unjustly violently attack said individual for his land.

In the first case, the land was previously unclaimed, so because of the small number of people involved, if someone made a claim on the land, they could have it and if multiple people wanted the land, they could figure out a way among themselves how to settle their dispute because no one actually owned it at that point in time.

But after a piece of land is owned, the owner does not need to negotiate in order to keep his land when someone else makes a claim on it. This is a violation of his natural right to own his property (which I’ve defined how someone gets their property), and I’ll discuss why people have property rights in another piece more fully.

But an obvious extension of this is that if people make deals to exchange things and someone ends up with more land than someone else through this peaceful process, then it is unjust to use violence to break this apart.

Peace is always the ultimate goal unless it is not, in which case we all suffer in the end.

Typically, we don’t like to suffer, and peace is the best way to maintain the lack of suffering (peace in itself is also a value as well).

I’ll give more analysis of property rights at a later date, as well as to why we have rights to property in the first place, as well as an analysis of the practicalities of that right.

The logic of lethal self-defense.

Libertarianism and Capitalism.


Things that I have for sale on Kindle.

Where you can financially support me if you so desire.

Liberals are like kids.

The argument for liberalism typically goes “Yeah but conservatism!”

Funny how we teach our kids that just because someone ELSE is doing something doesn’t mean that that gives YOU the right to do something.

So liberals are honestly childish, logically.

Stealing someone’s purse and saying “Yeah but that guy is RAPING somebody!” doesn’t justify your theft.

Liberal logic.



Libertarianism and Capitalism.

(Just to appease the irrational): Thomas E. Woods, Jr. – Take Your “Miss Me Yet?” Sign and Stick It.

Things that I have for sale on Kindle.

Where you can financially support me if you so desire.

My Controversial Message About the Rich and the Poor

The amount of money that you receive is based on how much people value what you give.

People will say “Well poor people shouldn’t be made to feel like less of a person because they are giving less.”

Well let me ask you something: why are you valuing them just because they’re poor? You’re obviously valuing them because of the amount of their possessions. So why is it ok to say that we can value a person simply because they’re poor, but we can’t value a rich person just because he’s rich?

In other words, why is the poor person valued because of his poverty, but the rich person isn’t valued because of his wealth?

Can only poor people be valued?

Why does poverty make you a saint, and why does wealth make you a devil?

If “poor people shouldn’t be made to feel like less of a person”, why should rich people?

If we can value poor people because of the amount of possessions that they have, why not rich people?

Rich people are hated mainly out of envy, and if not envy, then just ignorance. Mainly envy, however.

I would venture to say that the majority of people on Earth would like to be rich. But the majority are not.

Are the rich people keeping people poor?

How does Bill Gates keep me poor? By offering products for me to buy?

When he offers those products to me, am I more poor when I don’t buy them?

Am I more poor when I buy them? Yes, I may have less money. But I have a product. So how can I be more poor? I had a product that I didn’t have before: doesn’t that make me wealthier?

There is a difference between caring about the poor and destroying the rich.

Technically, you could steal a rich man’s money in order to feed the poor (the ol’ feel good Robin Hood story).

However, you aren’t just stealing that money from the rich man. You’re stealing money from everyone he would have bought something from. And you aren’t replacing it with anything. That’s why economies shrink (less jobs! Oooooooooh).

How often do you give your own money to people in the street? If you don’t, why don’t you? Is it because you know that they are going to go buy alcohol? But they’re poor! Don’t you care about them? You’d rather the person with millions of dollars give him some money, so that you could take credit for “helping out the poor.” However, you don’t see what the rich person actually does with his money. The rich man creates products for you to buy. The rich man provides you with jobs and wages. He can’t do that without wealth.

All of these companies that are attacked: they produce a lot of products, and they employ a lot of people. That would be impossible if these companies weren’t rich.

Do you ever wonder why corporations are bigger than small businesses? They have more money. You know why there are so many Wal-Marts around, but your small business doesn’t have as many chains as Wal-Mart does? Because they’ve made more money than you. How have they made more money than you? Was it slave labor? Was it because they ripped their customers off? Was it because they offered poorly made products? Let’s think about these things:

Why do corporations have more money than small businesses?

When you go to Wal-Mart, you’re looking for something that they have that you want or need.

That doesn’t happen as often in a small business.

In other words, Wal-Mart is offering MORE things that MORE people want at CHEAPER prices. How does that make them evil?

Does it make them evil because they’re running you out of business?

Lower your prices then.

Will lowering your prices put you out of business?

Why should I as a paying customer be forced by law to pay for something that’s more expensive than something else I could have freely bought?

You’re no better than the cronies. You’re just a more poor one.

You don’t get paid simply because you’re a human being. If you get paid simply because you’re in need, you’re also getting paid because someone else is caring for you and is paying you. However, you get paid more because of what you do for other people. End of story.

February 12, 2014.

Things that I have for sale on Kindle.

Where you can financially support me if you so desire.