You know things are wrong when...the village anarchist starts making sense.
You know things are really wrong when...the village anarchist sounds common-sensical.
And you know the screws have really hit the fan when...
the common-sensical sound like the village anarchist.
This is what happens when philosophy and logic are dropped from the curriculum.
She’s not a real anarchist, or she doesn’t know what real anarchy means - rule of the thug, little different from a police state where the thugs have uniforms.
That’s why I’m not an anarchist, although I’d probably fare better than most in anarchy.
Sadly, we really have become a police state in the worst sense of the term.
Sadly, I have to put an LOL on your comements.
In my relatively short lifetime I have witnessed that every German citizen who WAS NOT AN ANARCHIST was according to those who think like you, A WAR CRIMINAL, and their children are still paying real, hard earned money for their forebearers because they were not AN ANARCHIST.
Hmmm... Need to think on this.
All they can take is my life. I own nothing to speak of, divorces and the econcomy took care of that. My kids are grown and gone. I like my catz, but if they are hostages, they die.
What are they going to do? Kill me? Sure, they have that power.
But between leaving me alone, or killing me, there's not much they can do.
I raised a pig here in defiance of ordinances. (It's now in the freezer). It didn't bother the neighbors (none knew it was here).
Gonna kill me for breaking the 'law'? That will get great coverage locally.
Nope, the gooberment is like any bully. All you have to do is quietly and purposefully defy them while trying to expose them for what they are.
I'm willing to take my lumps if it comes to it. You can't rule a free man.
/johnny
How Does He Get His Reputation Back? by Wendy McElroy, May 20, 2011 Originally published by the Future of Freedom Foundation. Please visit the link provided to access the embedded links in the original article. On January 12, 2010, a 12-year-old sixth-grader did an unremarkable thing that almost destroyed a good man and his family. She lied about being touched “inappropriately.” Under a reasonable legal system, the transparent lie of an angry child would have caused little damage, but the current legal system does not resemble anything reasonable. Among the preposterous maxims it now embraces are “women don’t lie about rape” and “children don’t lie about molestation.” Justice requires the active recognition of lies. That is to say, a just legal system must recognize that the average person occasionally lies and some people do so pathologically. People lie from fear or for revenge; they lie for profit or other advantage, such as child custody; they lie from a sense of entitlement, loyalty, or a need to assert power. Sometimes they lie from a stubborn need to stand by an initial statement that was a “mistake.” When few to no penalties are imposed for lying, it becomes more frequent. At every turn, the tradition of Western jurisprudence acknowledges the human proclivity to lie; justice itself is deeply rooted in this acknowledgment. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is placed on the accuser, not the defendant. The right to face an accuser means he or she must stare a defendant in the eyes while repeating an accusation; the anonymity that encourages false reports is stripped away. Trial by jury means 12 representative people must agree on the facts and the veracity of an accuser before guilt is adjudicated. In criminal cases, the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is applied in order to preclude other possible explanations for the crime charged, such as a desire for revenge by an accuser, before a defendant is judged guilty. The need for hard evidence and a presumption of innocence become all the more important in cases that devolve to “he said, she said.” In short, preventing a lie from passing as truth is an intrinsic aspect of true justice, around which many due-process protections have been sculpted. If this were not the case, if an accuser never lies, then why would we even go to the trouble of a trial? Why not imprison the accused the instant an accusation is uttered?
This is from her.
I will have to agree, however, that it is a significant thing when the anarchist, the libertarian, and the conservative within me all agree that hanging a few politicians might be a healthy thing pour encourager les autres. Ruling classes aren't a healthy thing. IMHO.