Law Isn’t Violence?, Children’s Property, & Causes of Criminal Behavior (27m) – Editor’s Break 082

Editor’s Break 082 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: why the [mistaken] belief that “there should be a law” does not mean the threat of a gun to the face boggles his mind; children owning property and what rights a parent has if that property is stored in their house; the causes of criminal behavior in youth and adults alike; and more.

Listen to Editor’s Break 082 (27m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Continue Reading

The “Feeling People” Say It’s Time to Talk About Gun Laws

Yes, it is time to consider gun laws… and think of the innocent lives lost to them.

They all need to either be abolished or ignored. Permanently. And I really don’t care which. Either one would have the same positive effect.

Again, the recent massacre occurred, and was more deadly, in large part because of the existence of “gun free zones” and because of anti-gun policies that made it less likely that good people in the hotel could respond quickly to an evil loser.

As it happened, 72 minutes was considered “quick response” for people with guns to show up to stop the evil loser.

Every anti-gun “law” only affects the good people who don’t want to hurt innocent people; never the evil losers. It’s like giving them a hall pass to kill.

It’s time to end this evil loser-enabling “culture” once and for all. It’s time to make a truly polite society rise from the ashes.

Continue Reading

If You Need Violence to Enforce Your Ideas…

…your ideas are worthless. Or so goes the meme I’ve seen recently on Facebook. Actually, I’ve seen it before, in the past, and I shared it, thinking it was clever. This time around, however, I had a different take.

Are all ideas that need violence to enforce them worthless? Perhaps. I’d say a strict pacifist would say so. But I’m not a strict pacifist.

It hit me rather quickly this go around. What are rights if not a claim that one may use violence to protect them? Is the idea of rights worthless? I suppose it depends on what you mean by rights. They can be rather broad, after all.

Rights are a mental and social construct. People claim rights because they desire via an appeal, primarily to reason, to protect themselves and their resources. We all do it. Even when we argue that rights don’t exist, we do so using resources that we’ve claimed and would defend with… you guessed it: violence. And that’s what rights are, made manifest in reality.

The purpose of this meme was not to question rights, properly conceived. It was to question the practice of advocating that criminals governments pass laws to force innocent people behaving non-aggressively to live within arbitrary guidelines.

People who say things like, “There should be a law!” don’t seem to have a clue what law is. Law is not a set of club rules we all agree to follow so that we can play together in the tree house. Law is the death penalty for setting up an unlicensed lemonade stand.

And that’s not hyperbole. What good is law if not enforced, and what good is enforcement if it won’t escalate, and what is the end point of escalation? Death by decree.

Many ideas that require the violence of law to enforce are indeed worthless. Worse than worthless. They’re murderous. Each of us must decide which type of murder we’re willing to support, the kind that occurs in defense of our lives and liberties, or the kind that occurs because our neighbor’s grass is too high, he collects rain water, and he prefers torrenting new movies to paying high theatre prices.

Continue Reading