Down With Power Audiobook!

L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 889, September 11, 2016

“Microaggression” only affects the microintelligent.

Previous Previous          Table of Contents Contents          Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]


Letter from MamaLiberty with reply from Paul Bonneau

Letter from T.J. Mason



Letter from MamaLiberty with reply from Paul Bonneau

Re: “Anarchy—A Religion?” by Paul Bonneau

Paul
1) Is voting always aggressive—even voting against a tax hike ballot measure? So “defensive voting” is actually aggressive?

It is for me, and that's the only person I can speak for. What others do is not my business.

Paul
2) If a single voter has no influence whatsoever in an election, does that mean every other voter who voted for a winning candidate also had no influence whatsoever? How can it be that people with no influence managed to get somebody elected?

You keep asking this sort of question and the answer remains the same… The greatest current threat to all liberty and "rights" is the belief—outright or unrecognized—that any non-voluntary government or "laws" they produce have any legitimate authority to control our lives or limit those rights. The whole idea that some people can be given the power to control any part of our life—by force, fraud and theft… and then that, somehow, those people in power can be controlled by the voters… That's true circular reasoning.

"Voting" is not actually the problem. The vote of members of a voluntary association, community or organization—where those who don't agree can leave or otherwise change their association and can't be compelled to comply… those votes would not be aggression at all, of course.

People have to take back self ownership and self responsibility for everything before they can hope to protect their their freedom or their lives. Continuing to believe in the "authority" of non-voluntary government simply certifies the control by others, whether people "vote" or not.

And that self ownership is not going to happen by asking, begging or even threatening the politicians and statists they've "elected." It's not going to happen by electing the "right people." It will happen only when people are willing to take responsibility for themselves, their families and communities personally—and cast off the bogus "authority" of non-voluntary government at every level. The wise will replace it with cooperation, negotiation, live and let live. Those who don't accept that may begin to have personal problems with their lust to control others. Freedom is not a form of utopia, or even particularly pleasant at times. Freedom is messy, and damned hard work.

Paul
3) What do these various points have to do with preventing nuclear war?

Only the controllers, the overlords, the statists would want nuclear war to start with. If they do now, they will start it. The US "president" is most certainly not the only one in the world who might start this—and if another government did, whoever is US "president" would most certainly be drawn into returning it. Some might get more pleasure than others from pushing the button… but they all probably will if pushed.

We poor serf individuals currently can't actually control the controllers that are "elected" to control us, but if you think that your "vote" for Trump would make that nuclear danger less, go for it. Makes no difference to me…It's just my opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it.

MamaLiberty
mamaliberty@rtconnect.net

To Which Paul Bonneau replied:

I don't agree that voting is necessarily a result of belief in government legitimacy, even though most voters do believe that. One might vote instead (looking at the two possible outcomes—Clinton vs Trump as president), because survival looks significantly better one way than the other. There is no point in bringing up the legitimacy argument since we are talking specifically about whether anarchists should vote in this case. Anarchists don't believe government is legitimate. But they probably have some interest in survival.

Paul Bonneau
pjb1@protonmail.ch

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red boxes (it's a button!) to pay the authors

Back to the top


Letter from T.J. Mason

Denial of the right to keep and bear arms is the human rights violation that makes all other human rights violations possible.

TJ Mason
tjmason@oneamericanvoice.me


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author

Back to the top


This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

TLE AFFILIATE

Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest


Previous Previous          Table of Contents Contents          Next Next

Big Head Press