tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.comments2022-11-14T07:03:49.162-06:00by a cynical libertarianKyla Denaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comBlogger1187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-91535235751839599972013-07-28T13:09:53.926-05:002013-07-28T13:09:53.926-05:00To both of you, I think that we're probably cl...To both of you, I think that we're probably closer to agreeing than you think. Life is full of things that keep us from living in a truly anarchistic world, and that's good. Ultimately, of course, there's God, directing our lives and making sure we don't, you know, fly apart into individual pieces of atoms. Along with that, there is a supreme law that is held by God, and is overseen by him.<br /><br />I think the danger comes when we, as finite people, try to enforce that law upon others through force here on earth. It's that whole "pluck out the beam in your own eye before you pluck out the mote in your brother's eye" thing. Yes, Jonathan, homosexuality is against God's law. But I am not God. I am a broken, hurting sinner who lies and cheats and gets angry, and since "if a man offends in one point, he is guilty of all", I'm just as bad as Adolf Hitler, if we're going to go about enforcing God's law upon all of humanity here on Earth, I'd best just lock myself up cos I'm a ticking time bomb. That, in a nutshell, is my belief about moral legislation. And ultimately, I think if you worry too much about what other people do in their bedrooms, you're verging on perversion there. It is a shame to even speak of that which is done of them in secret, after all. I honestly just flat don't care what people do in their bedrooms. I'll tell them that men are sinners, that God has made a way for them to be free of it, and let their bedroom stay between them and their conscience. It's none of my business.<br /><br />Anyway. Like I explained to Travis, I understand that America was founded upon principles that were better than a lot of other founding principles. I understand that lots of other countries throughout history have done some pretty horrible things (but lol, if all the kids on the block jump off a bridge, are you going to? i mean let's be adults and stop comparing ourselves to others because, after all, "comparing themselves among themselves, they are not wise"). But this post was directed more towards those who adamantly insist that America had some kind of halcyon glory days when we were right with God completely, and everything was rosy, and that's simply not true. If we're going to be completely technical, the very first seeds of our country were planted amid the slaughter of indigenous peoples, whether intentionally or not. The only reason America as a country still exists is because land was literally stolen by force from a group of people who had lived here for centuries, people who treated it a whole heck of a lot better than we have. Regardless of the perceived "Manifest Destiny", or how "evil" the native Americans be--"it must needs be that offenses come, but woe be to him by whom they come." <br /><br />And I'd be wary of tying America so closely to the fate of The World At Large. We weren't here for a long time, and since South Korea is, you know, more of a "Christian" nation than we are right about now, if we judge by numbers and percentages of missionaries sent out and churches planted...well, I really don't think the world would be all that bad off without our constant drone strikes and belligerent playground bully ways.Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-64917516171096823472013-07-10T15:58:24.795-05:002013-07-10T15:58:24.795-05:00Why does everyone single out America for holding s...Why does everyone single out America for holding slaves? Oh, is it because they were black, and it's politically incorrect? Ever heard of the Roman Empire? There were more slaves (many of them white and other races) than freedmen by and large. Same with Egypt, back when the Israelites were held in captivity. They weren't black either.<br /><br />Tragedy101 makes a very good point. Everyone in this world is a slave to something, ultimately either the One True God, the devil, or man. True freedom, in this world, cannot exist but by enslaving oneself to God (one of the definitions in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the word 'slave' is: "one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence"), thus freeing oneself from that other, horrible, slavery.<br /><br />I strongly object to your idea of "equal rights". Homosexual marriage is against God's Law, a higher law than ever man's government can pass, so regardless of the degeneration of morality, it will <b>never</b> be Lawful. Same with abortion. How does "make the best choices for themselves" make murder lawful, pray tell? What if I just decide the best choice for me is to not have to look at anyone on my block any longer, so I say they all need to be nuked. Suddenly lawful? I think not.<br /><br />In conclusion, there is, has been, and always will be (until Christ's return) corruption among men, and, as such, there will never be a utopian society in this world. I warn you: do not so lightly throw aside our heritage in this country. If America falls, the world falls, to a great extent, as has been said by many, many people in other countries. They know what we have/had, and if we throw that to the wind, we've already lost this fight.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14969021234543755452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-23888009604096606542013-07-08T23:49:35.677-05:002013-07-08T23:49:35.677-05:00Slavery is not holding someone against their will,...Slavery is not holding someone against their will, as you stated in your post. Slavery is the possession of a human as property. That being said, it is not necessarily against that person's will.<br /><br />In fact I am not sure any of us can ever not be slaves. But I can choose whom to be a slave to, and for me that is Christ Jesus, my Savior, God, and King.<br /><br />This land is where Christians flee to avoid persecution and have done so for four hundred years. There is no country in our world, more protective of Christians worshipping as their conscience dictates, nor has there ever been.<br /><br />Don't fret, that will change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-29763583094736887962013-07-07T09:10:20.849-05:002013-07-07T09:10:20.849-05:00Here's to being redundant. Yeah, I saw your Fa...Here's to being redundant. Yeah, I saw your Facebook comment after I wrote what I did to the blog...and realized your response there replied to what I said as much as to the FB comments...but I let my words stand anyway. So here's to being redundant...Captain Travishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09951843520672985269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-80584176783552579022013-07-06T11:10:37.773-05:002013-07-06T11:10:37.773-05:00To copy/paste what I said on Facebook, cos I can d...To copy/paste what I said on Facebook, cos I can do that:<br /><br />There definitely hasn't ever been a state of utter, anarchistic freedom in the US--or anywhere--and I doubt there ever will be. In many ways, I think that's a good thing, because I quite like having some governmental resources that allow me to, say, get justice when somebody comes and steals my laptop from me. (I'm speaking of 'justice' outside me getting a gun and/or baseball bat and pursuing that jerk to the ends of the earth, of course, since that would be vigilante justice and not exactly the best solution for the problem of bloated law enforcement agencies.)<br /><br />This post was directed more towards those who believe in some kind of mythical "These United States", where wrongs were always righted and people could always get justice and the government never interfered in people's business and everybody lived in harmony because they were ~free. This view of history is ignoring the many abuses of power that went on even during the founders' era (Alien and Sedition Acts, the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, reservations, slavery, Jim Crow, all of these things that were things), and continue to this day. The American government, as an institution, was never so beautifully libertarian as many right-wingers, or even left-wingers, would like us all to believe. So.Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-70349156969983813812013-07-06T10:48:30.294-05:002013-07-06T10:48:30.294-05:00Hmmm. Freedom is always relative. It cannot be abs...Hmmm. Freedom is always relative. It cannot be absolute, because at least SOME government restriction is required to keep some individuals from violating the freedoms of others...in other words, anarchy (ideally, the most free form of government, i.e. none at all) would quickly descend into feudalism.<br /><br />So the question becomes, what freedoms are the most important to defend? What freedoms do we need to guarantee exist and what obligations are required to protect those freedoms?<br /><br />Government regulation is not inherently evil...it becomes evil or burdensome based the specifics of what it does. This is something citizens can and should have a lively debate about. It is in the interest of the government (i.e. the people) to regulate the medical profession so that it does not randomly hurt people. Would reasonable enforced medical ethics restrict abortion? I think it would... <br /><br />But back to 1776, under the circumstances of the American Revolution, "taxation without representation" was a rather meager justification for war, since the English colonies had the most freedoms of about anyone in the world and much lighter taxes than England itself, ESPECIALLY when you consider that many of the complaints were coming from slave owners.<br /><br />But I think when British troops marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the militia weapons there, depriving ordinary citizens of reasonable self-defense, that constituted a bona fide justification for war. The British government did not have the right to deny its citizens self-defense...that was an abuse of their power...IMHO.Captain Travishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09951843520672985269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-42701441933539999432012-12-24T18:49:57.595-06:002012-12-24T18:49:57.595-06:00Spot on, as usual. Glad to see you back in the blo...Spot on, as usual. Glad to see you back in the blogosphere, BTW.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14969021234543755452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-81638665936287366082012-12-18T09:58:58.947-06:002012-12-18T09:58:58.947-06:00Very sensible and true, thank you for that.Very sensible and true, thank you for that.Latraviatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03602462985202341046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-10675114911002671102012-12-15T11:25:19.221-06:002012-12-15T11:25:19.221-06:00This saddens me, also. Sadly the media will hype t...This saddens me, also. Sadly the media will hype this so much that the nest shooter will believe they will make headlines too.<br />Bobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15890417363051531799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-66920831259405587372012-10-06T16:58:16.811-05:002012-10-06T16:58:16.811-05:00Because it's my blog, and I can post whatever ...Because it's my blog, and I can post whatever I please, and what I please happens to include my own personal beliefs about who is most able to lead this country.Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-52698620009290402802012-10-05T23:22:52.051-05:002012-10-05T23:22:52.051-05:00That is not what the founders of this nation thoug...That is not what the founders of this nation thought. <br /><br />Why do you write this as a blog post and not a "Dear Diary" entry?<br /><br />I am suspicious your response is false. If who you are voting for is only your personal business, why post it publicly? Unless, you don't actually believe what you are saying. And even then, I am still lost as to why you would post it publicly.<br /><br />I want to understand, but I just... don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-82480285546680266112012-10-05T20:50:03.723-05:002012-10-05T20:50:03.723-05:00In my opinion, I highly doubt he has a shot at act...In my opinion, I highly doubt he has a shot at actually becoming the new President of the United States, and that assessment has little to do with whatever popular support he may or may not possess. I don't doubt that most people do--or would--quite like what he has to say, but the political establishment in general has shown quite clearly over the years that it does what it wants, and to hell with popular opinion.<br /><br />As to the last paragraph, I'm voting for him because I agree with him. My vote is mine to dispense with as I please; it has nothing to do with whether or not other people agree with him or not. If they don't, and they choose to vote for someone else, that's their business. It is none of mine, and my vote is none of their's. Besides, given the way the political situation is going, it's become a given that at least 40% of the populace will disagree with the President at one point or another, it's just a matter of which 40%.Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-44749832332703116662012-10-05T08:32:09.792-05:002012-10-05T08:32:09.792-05:00You don't disagree with my assessment?
I thin...You don't disagree with my assessment?<br /><br />I think there is a good possibility of Gary Johnson winning this election. I did not say "most people," only "many people."<br /><br />Your words indicate you do not think Mr. Johnson represents most Americans in their principles and values. Knowing this, what is the reason of your vote for him to represent, not just you, but all Americans as Head of State?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-63529735619992103472012-10-04T20:02:25.412-05:002012-10-04T20:02:25.412-05:00I think it has been very clear throughout my polit...I think it has been very clear throughout my political journey that I rarely follow in the footsteps of "most people".Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-48674601732959964102012-10-04T18:39:59.430-05:002012-10-04T18:39:59.430-05:00I was at about the same point when I turned 18 a w...I was at about the same point when I turned 18 a while back, so I know where you're coming from. Good post, and happy birthday, belated of course.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14969021234543755452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-42501257909550592882012-10-04T08:52:48.325-05:002012-10-04T08:52:48.325-05:00Yeah, but for many people Gary Johnson ain't t...Yeah, but for many people Gary Johnson ain't that man.<br /><br />Mitt Romney is for states' rights.<br /><br />Gary Johnson says he's for individual rights, which he should fight for in New Mexico.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-42083379238740230852012-09-29T19:19:22.341-05:002012-09-29T19:19:22.341-05:00Why, thank you.Why, thank you.Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-72901171389093459482012-09-29T18:50:58.831-05:002012-09-29T18:50:58.831-05:00Happy Birthday, you responsible adult, you.Happy Birthday, you responsible adult, you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06096743545034524940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-8623173779021566212012-09-23T16:28:51.302-05:002012-09-23T16:28:51.302-05:00You have a really interesting site it's great ...You have a really interesting site it's great to see fellow young people express themselves through use of the blog and this is a great one certainly. I run a similar blog called visibleteens.wordpress.com, I was wondering if you could email me at awprice@btinternet.com I have a proposition which would be mutually beneficial. Thanks.Peter Pricehttp://visibleteens.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-75665816405206869032012-07-31T09:56:59.390-05:002012-07-31T09:56:59.390-05:00Hi Kayla,
Rarely do I find someone that can state...Hi Kayla,<br /><br />Rarely do I find someone that can state their opinion so eloquently. I do not agree with you. It is unlikely that I ever will. But, you disagree with me in such a way that you are not forcing your point of view on me, and I appreciate that. I only wish that others could do the same.<br /><br />AAllen Davidsonhttp://ibloggedyourmom.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-78603275629714763232012-07-23T22:31:19.747-05:002012-07-23T22:31:19.747-05:00Right on, as usual. That "I don't want to...Right on, as usual. That "I don't want to waste my vote" line has always rankled with me. By what sort of logic can someone justify helping choose something that they completely disagree with, simply to make sure that their vote is counted with the winning side? Well, the American sheeple, obviously. Anyway, please keep it up; I quite enjoy reading your posts here.<br /><br />-JonathanAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14969021234543755452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-33220776202449395242012-04-09T18:59:15.111-05:002012-04-09T18:59:15.111-05:00John, that may be, but it doesn't make him any...John, that may be, but it doesn't make him any less of a hack. I vote on principle--something a person whose name is "John Galt" should really understand a bit better.Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-51322015736758445052012-04-09T18:11:20.392-05:002012-04-09T18:11:20.392-05:00Unfortunately for you only two people in Congress ...Unfortunately for you only two people in Congress voted against the Patriat Act (glad that disaster of a bill is finally over) due to the fact that we had just had a terrorist attack and people don't think straight when buildings start to explode. Not saying its okay to support a bill that infringes on people's rights but it wouldnt be a good idea to hold that against him.John Galtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-60478736634376408702012-04-08T22:49:44.220-05:002012-04-08T22:49:44.220-05:00Tragedy, I'm quite sorry I forgot about this d...Tragedy, I'm quite sorry I forgot about this discussion--my brain has been everywhere in the world for the past couple weeks. -_-<br /><br />I'm also quite tired, so I'm not quite sure my brain is processing your last comment quite well. But it seems like you have an interesting theory. Though it is important to remember that a man who thinks he is making a law for another's "own good" could potentially become more tyrannical than the man who does it for his own gain. Somebody somewhere once said something quite like that, but I can't remember who it was and the afore-mentioned sleepiness is making it difficult to remember the exact wording.Kyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-75973410886697762772012-04-08T15:44:53.422-05:002012-04-08T15:44:53.422-05:00"And after reading what STS recommended only ..."And after reading what STS recommended only to have him backpedal on his opinions, makes me think it would not help."<br /><br />I assume I'm STS, given that I've been so referred to and so pseudonym-ed in the past. I needed a laugh, so thanks for inserting me for no apparent reason into your discussion here. (if you don't/didn't want to read Bastiat, don't. I don't see what I could have had to do with that decision). <br /><br />PS I don't recall recommending reading much of anything either. The submission of works and authors was made in contesting a (frequent, and apparently continuing, given the contextual reference here) ad hominem attack/assumption rather than as a suggestion of ideas and influencing ideals. This was to knock back a straw man, not to advance your education. <br /><br />I also don't recall backpedaling my views. In fact, I seem to remember someone else.... raising and dropping points of argumentation without properly defending them. I see the now familiar practice of psychological projectionism continued. <br /><br />PPS I'm pleased that you've gotten better at making clearer arguments in these debates, and I found the barter-taxation point very good. Just lay off the ad hominem assertions. Particularly when it's a complete non sequitur.Sun Tzuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03435848395263035323noreply@blogger.com