The Non-Aggression Principle’s Biggest Flaw Is Purely A Terminological Error.

fight-1

I look at this and then I look at the LP pledge… and I’m all like… what?

I see this Terminological Error as mostly on the Libertarian Party’s War Doves

Hello again other humans. I am your Cheshire CT neighborhood fiscally conservative and socially humanist independent thinker, Perkino. Basically I have been reflecting for quite some time on what I make of the Non-Aggression Principle. I don’t think I need to type the definition by words that WordPress will deem as part of the word count. And frankly my rationale is… well, look at my image choice above please and thank you.

Aggression as defined by the English Language vs Aggression as defined by Antiwar Activists

Eh… here goes something that might cost me custody of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee 😂 which I built online by my own Facebook account. I hope this case I am going to make will not but I suspect that it will. Anyhow, time for utmost intellectual honesty.

So basically the only thing stopping me from signing the aptly named ‘Libertarian Pledge’ is that it plays by a purely pacifistic definition of ‘aggression’. Here is their made-up definition;

  • Any use of force to achieve any political or social goal

Whereas…. if you look at the mainstay definition that currently all of Western Civilization, the only systemically libertarian and morally civilized culture in humanity, you see (or at least I see) an intrinsically different definition.

  • Unprovoked use of forceful action to dominate or to destroy another

Unlike the LP War-dove definition of aggression; the Western Cultural definition of aggression accounts not just for reality itself but also for a few other Western Cultural definitions. Two of them relevant to the focus of this online diary of mine.

  1. Right of Self-Defense: The right of the individual or the nation to use force to defend the lives of self and of other individuals or foreign societies, including the use of deadly force.
  2. Intervention: The behavior of using hinderance, obstruction and/or modification to change a process and/or a future.

What Does the NAP Allow & Forbid by Western Cultural Definition of the word ‘aggression’?

Okay, let’s start with what’s allowed.

Basically every lifestyle that does not involve unprovoked actions of intentional violence is allowed. No matter how revealing the attire, no matter how risky the form of athleticism, no matter how little known the morality.

What’s also allowed under this meaning of the NAP is buying raw bits for crafting and for resale of them as artsy crafts. Another economic behavior allowed under this dialect of the NAP is organized religions and secular moralities peacefully competing with each other for subscribers in accordance with the laws of supply and demand. Well, peacefully until someone does unprovoked acts of force with the intent of dominating and/or destroying.

Which leads into what’s not allowed.

Sexual violence against people for dressing revealingly for their free time is existentially not allowed. Another thing that’s not allowed is medically damaging actions against one’s own kids and/or against one’s own pets. And yes, my membership of the Austin Petersen freedom ninja army opens my eyes to legions of stories about pet abuse that do sicken me, greatly.

Now; time for puzzle games!

Puzzle games? Yeah, allow me to make up names for the purposes of these puzzle games, without care for if the names are real or not.

  1. Derpy decides he is going to hijack a construction worker’s bulldozer to tear down the office of a computer game modding club because he cannot understand how PC game mods can possibly qualify as a legit hobby. Has Derpy been provoked into needing to use force? No. Has Derpy used force? Yes. Was Derpy using force to pull off a political goal? No. Was Derpy using force to pull off a social goal? Yes. Was the social goal to dominate and destroy another? Yes.
  2. Jorgon is walking down the sidewalk on her way home from her town’s local coffee shop. She is right about to hit the button to be allowed by the traffic lights to safely cross the street when some sporty dude attacks her. His goal regarding Jorgon is to sexually assault her so hard as to literally kill her, and Jorgon’s defense against this is to whip out a huge pocket knife and decapitate her attacker with it. Now, has Jorgon been provoked into needing to use force? Yes. Has Jorgon used force? Yes. Was Jorgon using force to pull off a political goal? No. Was Jorgon trying to pull off a social goal? Yes. Was that social goal to dominate or destroy another? No!

No more puzzle games. Time for wrap up

Basically I am someone you can expect to tell the Libertarian Pledge to go f— itself in its current wording. Primarily when you’re talking about a tyrannical nation whose regime has totally nothing (or almost nothing) to do with free market capitalism. And when you’re talking about a nation of this nature posing even a latent threat of future attack on American civilians, so too do I keep telling the LP pledge’s current wording to lick a d—. However, that’s not to say that the wording can’t be changed. In fact, based on the terminological content about Western Cultural definitions, I say the LP pledge can and must be re-worded. Into something like this.

  • I certify that I oppose the unprovoked use of force to dominate or destroy any behaviorally harmless entity.

That’s all I got on the NAP. Byyyee!

~KSP Perkins

I Might As Well Say Something About Nukes and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction…

mtredoubtedit1


Mushroom cloud behind mountains. What I think when I hear ‘WMD’.

For all my advocacy of Anticipatory Self-Defense, Capitalist Regime Change and Unilateral Free Trade…

Why have I never staked out an opinion on nuclear weapons let alone on weapons of mass destruction in general? Well, it may take me at least four hundred words to explain. So, everyone sit back and read this so that we can all understand where I stand, along with my own political self-discovery.

My Moral Perspective

Basically, I am going to be frank on this and on the tactical perspective. I will be totally and utterly honest and simple about my own individual moral perspective.

So far as I am concerned, only free societies should be able to decide independently whether or not to own nukes. Whether or not they have WMDs. If you don’t know what I mean by ‘free societies’, let me summarize.

  • A free society is a country that breathes the doctrine of free will and the principles of individual liberty, both in preach and in practice, both in economy and in culture.

No free society should really tell anyone but itself who can and cannot own WMDs. Basically, a free society should only concern itself with its own arsenal, not with the arsenals of its fellow free societies. Free societies should not care what anyone but themselves say about their respective arsenals.

My Tactical Perspective

My argument against a free society stocking or using nukes and other WMDs is purely a battlefield brilliance argument. Specifically, it is as simple as this.

  • Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as nuclear anythings, are totally not compatible with a Sun Tzu~like foreign policy.

In essence, I am a kind of individual liberty activist who wants to have free markets, limited government and secular morality domestically. And to get us back on topic in the foreign policy field I am most like Sun Tzu. This kind is most precisely summed up as ‘neolibertarian’; meaning exactly what I describe above about free markets, limited government, secular morality and Sun Tzu.

Which in this topic means I cannot support the mere existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction as there is no tactical brilliance at all to… any of them, really!

All Summed Up

Frankly, here is my morality regarding weapons of mass destruction. Only free societies have the moral right to choose whether or not to have WMDs, and even then I’d advise all free societies against having WMDs on behalf of a Sun-Tzu-like foreign policy.

Thanks everyone for learning and understanding where I am on weapons of mass destruction;

~KSP Perkins

What Capitalist Regime Change is, why I support it, and why I advocate for it.

judge-2-6-1897

Political concept art in an 1890’s news magazine about the Thomas Jefferson concept ‘Empire of Liberty’

To be defining the terms

Firstly of all, what exactly is regime change in general?

  • Regime Change is the act of converting the political atmosphere of another country into some different political atmosphere.

Next, we must define capitalism in an honest way.

  • Capitalism is an economic system and doctrine of private individual ownership of items and talents, of investments which are decided by individual decision, of prices, profits, and wages rising every time demand gets bigger than supply, and of these three dropping every time demand gets smaller than supply.

Finally, we can talk about what democracy is.

  • Democracy is a government wherein supreme power is voted on by the people, often on the basis of majority rule and of ‘wisdom’ of the crowds.

Okay, so now we have three solid pieces of a legit jumping point.

Contrasting Two forms of Regime Change

Okay, now let us look at the difference between Democratic regime change vs Capitalist regime change.

Democratic regime change means once the free society has militarily defeated the tyranny that either threatened or assailed it, the free society then…

  • sends its military into a nation-building campaign that sets up the natives of the tyranny with whatever kind of society they want as long as it features semi-annual elections.

Capitalist regime change means once the free society has militarily defeated the tyranny that threatened or assailed it, the free society… you ready for this?

  • Pulls a huge majority of its surviving victors home and leaves something like 10% or 20% of the surviving victors behind to guard the flourishing of free markets and free trade in what used to be the tyranny.

So in essence, Capitalist regime change is the action we took with Germany and Japan after World War Two and the action we took with South Korea after the Korean War.

Any errors with this idea?

As with any idea formulated by people, there are flaws to Capitalist Regime Change, and no these do not include the fact that it’s a form of regime change. And it most certainly does not include the focus of capitalism on the individual and its open favoritism to smarter work ethics, those are some of the best things ever about capitalist regime change.

The actual major flaw of Capitalist Regime Change is that it takes about half a century for free markets, free trade and free enterprise to finish raising government integrity and raising moral freedom for long enough for American military oversight to stop being needed by the foreign society.

Another big flaw with Capitalist Regime Change is you are keeping a few thousand US troops on a foreign soil they just destroyed the latest ruler of over undeniable evidence of that latest ruler doing state sponsorship of terrorism. Tends to be dangerous for the American troops, or if some other free society like Israel or whoever is doing it, then it’s still dangerous for the overseers. Mainly, as this is the big factor for why Capitalism takes a while to take root even with totally no nation building and with no world-police acts of nannying foreigners whatsoever. Basically you will have surviving acolytes of the previous despotic statist regime that will take up arms over how they see free trade and free migration altering the society they used to callously enforce tyrannical grip of.

Why I favor a foreign policy of Capitalist Regime Change

Because tyrannical societies are barbarians who forfeit all rights to national sovereignty by rejecting individual liberty and by rejecting free enterprise. And also, there is already a case I did for how Peace On Earth is going to totally require the making of every country in humanity into a Free Market economy with no monopolies.

As for here, I will do short summary. The root cause of terrorism, genocide, slavery, famine, war, and other atrocities done by abusive authorities, governmental or otherwise, is Non-capitalism. Not America, not Israel, not Neocons, not Zionists, not even bigotry. Only non-capitalism.

Lastly, I will say this. I find it consistent with the doctrine of free will and the principles of individual liberty to favor a form of regime change that imposes the economic system & doctrine that has created more prosperity and more transparency than any other devised by people. Thank you readers;

~KSP Perkins

How To Fix the Taxing and Spending issue in the United States of America

fc8a3eb0-400c-44d9-9378-d95b7a2e94ac

America has $20 trillion in debt, and here is how I think we ought to fix that!

If you take money out of my paycheck and give it to someone else without my consent,

Then I don’t call that charity, I don’t even call it welfare. I call it theft. Hi again, people of the human species. I am an American human being who is going to extrapolate here about how to fix this fiscal disaster we currently live in.

What exactly are the details of the disaster?

Well, there are two factors to always assess in one assessment. The tax revenue category, or as it is for regular people like me the tax burden, is one. Category two is the federal spending category, which can also be called federal budgets, government spending and government budgets.

Taxing

We have more different kinds of taxes than I even know how to condemn differently. I have to make a numbered list to figure out for myself how many different taxes we as Americans pay.

  1. Income
  2. Payroll
  3. Property
  4. Corporate
  5. Capital Gains
  6. Dividend
  7. Trade
  8. Estate
  9. Gift
  10. Sales

Each of these with a library’s worth of loopholes, nuances, dos, don’ts and more. The total burden or revenue mounts, currently, to $4.4 trillion according to the World Fact Book.

Spending

$6.3 trillion in total spending, according to the same source. As for spending breakdown, we must turn to a private sector fact book for that. Here are the percentages applied to the World Fact Book’s federal spending number.

  • $1.6 trillion that Congress doesn’t even know what this spending goes to.
  • $1.4 trillion on monopolizing healthcare.
  • $1.1 trillion on Pensions
  • $964 billion on monopolizing education
  • $788 billion on “Providing for the Common Defense”, to quote the constitution
    • $550 billion on American military
    • $79 billion on foreign aid
    • $158 billion on Veteran’s handouts
  • $435 billion on “The General Welfare”, as the constitution calls it.

Basically, 81% of the federal spending is on Unconstitutional functions.

How do we fix this disaster?

Well, we do not do it by either one of revolution or by going about it slowly-but-surely. Instead, we need to amend the constitution to restore our founding taxing and spending system. Which basically was to not tax anything but trade and to not spend on anything but defense and welfare.

What are the fine details of this solution though?

Firstly, we need to look at our trade. $1.5 trillion is how much worth of matter Americans export from foreign lands every year. $2.25 trillion is how much worth of matter we as Americans import from foreign lands every year.

Not to mention, economists love the idea of getting rid of any tax that is on production! Economists only want consumption taxed, and not production. However, there is a fiscal and moral need to exempt the poor from taxes of any kind, and economists know this to, as the article I linked to indicates. Individually, I’d say the rate needs to be something low for the working and middle classes and something high for the very rich. Here’s an example I can offer:

  • 0% Import tax for the poor and the working class
  • 50% Import tax for the middle class and the rich

That’d be amounting to $1.875 trillion, which leads to what we need to do with spending to make it a surplus maker and not a deficit maker.

Get rid of foreign aid, reduce spending on Vet’s handouts and on Welfare handouts by something slight like perhaps 20%. This would lead to an annual spending pattern of $1.025 trillion and therefore an annual surplus of $850 billion, 100% of which ought to go to paying off our national debt, even though it will take something like 25 years with an annual surplus of this size. If we adopt this plan right when we need to (aka now), I will be hitting my 60’s when America’s national debt is all paid off. How’s that for realism?

It’s excellent for realism, and the only thing better is you readers and how much I appreciate you all reading my jargon here,

~KSP Perkins

The People Who Argue Against America Being Humanity’s Only Military Superpower

shutterstock_262713128

Time to debunk foreign tyranny sympathizers’ myths about American military might again.

Introduction

As far as I can tell, American military might is exactly what has allowed free markets and free trade to pop up all over the world since World War Two. Also, from what else I can gather, America’s military cannot simply retreat to within American borders and expect the world to be super duper nice to any and all American civilians. Sorry, fellow libertarians, human nature itself stringently forbids the world from working that way.

Basically as one who likes learning the facts of human military histories, I can only ask one question from now on next time a fellow libertarian argues against the American military’s global vigilance.

  • If human nature is so exceptionally perfect as of the Age of Enlightenment that foreign countries don’t need American military oversight to stick to political individualism, then…
    1. How come Karl Marx was able to get socialism normalized? How come the House of Saud was able to produce and normalize Islamic Fascism without any attention, initially, to America?
    2. How come every time since world war 2 leaving 10% of a surviving US brigade behind for 55 years has lead to a newly Westernized libertarian republic taking root?
    3. How come every time since world war 2 taking out 100% of a surviving US brigade has always lead to a barbarian regime built purely by the biggest government statists in the native population?

Of course I expect alarmingly few in the same movement with me to answer honestly as opposed to silencing me with a label or some other dishonest insult. The offensive part to me being the dishonesty, not the status quo of being an insult. In fact, I can name only two people in my movement who are more on the Dovish side of thoughts (Austin Petersen and Liberty Laura) but will still answer classily.

The ‘Bloated Spending’ Argument

The favorite argument of people who actively blow off numeric factoids about American government spending on federal level. If these people would study these numeric factoids, then here is what they would learn.

  • Out of our $854 billion in defense spending, military spending is a $617 billion majority of that.
  • That is a 72% majority of defense spending to be exact
  • The rest is stuff like foreign aid ($56 billion, 7%) and Veteran’s Handouts ($181 billion, 21%)

Also, comparing American military budget to foreign countries’ military budgets is purely about emotionally manipulating newcomers to the topic of foreign policy. Emotionally manipulate how? Basically, it’s emotionally manipulating topical newcomers into sharing the outrage of openly barbaric tyrannies toward American military oversight of the world around America. Even though this oversight is precisely what keeps the world invested in the individual rights of the human being to life, liberty and property, like John Locke advocated.

A truly facts-over-feelings comparison to make would be of American military spending to other American federal spendings. Especially as military is only the third biggest drainer of American tax revenue. Tax revenue, which by the way, is supposed to only be raised through taxing foreign trade as of the Constitution, even though I myself morally prefer Non tax Revenue Only. Anyway, Pension and Healthcare spendings are so terribly out of control that they make military spending by America look trivial on the revenue draining scale. $1 trillion and $1.2 trillion respectively, these are the spendings most in need of dramatic reduction in short order. Pensions I am not yet sure how to cut spending on, but for healthcare I’d like to see a Hong Kong style system due to their system’s high efficiency and superior life expectancy at a very low cost.

The ‘Word Policing’ Argument

Disclaimer time! I do want to get government out of the business of rescuing foreigners from themselves, and I do oppose imposing democracy on foreign countries. The latter because democracy is basically allowing, in this political topic, foreigners to choose any kind of elections they want, no matter how anti-American and no matter how anti-liberty.

Okay, that’s enough with disclaimers. Basically when I hear people talk about world policing, I ask the following objective & neutral question.

  • May you please give me an example of how the world would be better off if America just let Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Sudan do whatever they want to the world around them?

And almost no one can give me an example without brazenly lying! It is very ridiculous of antiwar activists to act like they know everything about the world around them, which for me to put it bluntly is all of the time.

I might make a sequel to this for my other arguments against this kind of sentiment, but for now I am stopping here. Thanks everyone,

~KSP Perkins

Concerning Mountain Dew Baja Blast

20bd2bfbe0e7fde56f9c3df9fbd836bb

Was this me a long time ago? Because whoever it was forgets that there is more to a variant of Mountain Dew than just a distinct color……?

Since my Barbecue has been pulled back to May 3 from May 6 for purely weather reasons…

…I am going to go ahead and talk about Baja Blast and say stuff about it. Yes, I am having a BBQ for my 23rd birthday which is on May 6th, and May 3rd is the day. However, I am not sharing the address or other fine details with anyone I have not invited.

So in the mean time allow me to sit back and lecture you about Baja Blast, please.

How I describe the color

Um… I guess I would describe the color as kind of an azure ocean color like in Late Jurassic Europe. Yeah, back then did any of my British and other European readers know? Your continent was just a scattered set of extra tiny islands from 150 million BC all the way till 65 million BC! See here.

Anyway, so basically the azure color of a prehistoric ocean. As noted in the image above, someone tried to replicate that but missed the fact that there is a flavor to it. Speaking of which…

How I describe the flavor

Basically, the flavor as far as I can tell, is a kind of ‘Tropical Lime” flavor. However, I have not done until the day of this post the research into what species of tropical lime.

Okay so the only tropical lime I could find in my research has two names. Kaffir Lime and Makrut Lime.

And if you are going to take this post offensively just because of some idiocy related to the first of these terms that I was not aware of until doing my research today, then GO AWAY. This post is purely about analyzing myself and what I make of one of my favorite kinds of sodas. I do not and will not address complaints about my acknowledgement of a certain term’s mere existence. I only recently learned that there are some arrogant fools out there who think it’s healthy to call some human individuals a specie of tropical lime. I am sickened by such behavior as I find it and bigotry and general to be distasteful stupidity. People who call each other the official name of a food as an insult are not intellectually serious people. In fact, I think such people are intellectually suicidal people.

Okay, sorry for getting off topic, and especially sorry for sounding angry. But that was to make sure people who care only about their feelings retreat from this blog instantly. Also to make sure they never return. But anyway, that’s the best way I can sum up Baja Blast.

Quick Sum Up

A Late Jurassic ocean colored soda that tastes like a specimen of lime that may or my not be a South Asian specimen.

Thanks everyone;

~KSP Perkins

Peace Activism vs Defensive War (Libertarian Case Against Antiwar Candidates or Antiwar anything)

A Libertarian case against ‘peace activist’ foreign policy

The truth is that liberty is a rare thing in the world, and only ever exists when people are eager to kill to establish and protect it… barbarians, tyrants and fascists are far more common because human nature is raw, animalistic, kill-or-die barbarism.

As the owner of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee, and of PD-PAL News (PD-PAL = Pro Defense Pro America Libertarianism), and a very-rare-time The Libertarian Republic anchor myself, I oppose antiwar activism. However I do not discount the moral need to keep a free society’s warfare well within the Western World norm of Right of Self-Defense.

If you don’t know already, the reality I can add to Keith’s details, is there’s only two root causes of war of aggression, meaning unprovoked acts of warfare against a neighboring society.

  1. Non-capitalism
  2. Anti-capitalism

See here for why I say that.

Diplomatic Self-Restraint vs Anticipatory Self-Defense

Which one of these two courses of actions gets more killed? The statistical reality for free societies is that it’s actually diplomatic self-restraint that gets more people killed.

It was well known during World War II that Adolf Hitler wanted to annex the entire world and purge it of any dissenters to National Socialism. Basically, that means that he wanted in part to conquer the United States. Early war against Hitler’s Germany in 1933 would have saved 21 million Non-combatant lives. But instead we decided to wait until General Tojo attacked us in Pearl Harbor for telling him to stay away from Britain’s then Southeast Asian colonies. Then we lashed out against Hitler for his attack on us over our attack on Tojo.

Speaking of Hideki Tojo, his rule over Japan got 6 million people killed, and even though only 68 of those were Americans, a 1936 war against Tojo’s Japan would have saved not just 68 American lives but 6 million human lives including those 68 Americans.

And of course World War One did nothing to really achieve any moral good, but a 1909 war against Ottoman Turkey would have saved 2 million lives ranging from 1.5 million Armenians, to 250,000 Greeks to 250,000 Syrians. And yes, Right of Self Defense does double as an option to use force to defend lives of others.

So in short, the painful reality in foreign policy is that war is inherently the only answer to evidently clear threats of foreign aggression.

To give another example, in 1917 when the Bolshevik Revolution went on and threatened to enslave the entire globe [including America] to communism, a 1917 war against Soviet Russia would have stopped the Cold War from erupting against America in 1941, long after saving 62 million human lives, foreign and American alike.

Libertarian Opinions on Foreign Policy are not all the same!

If you came here from an external link, then you noticed the 48% statistic and the rambling about how 48% of libertarians oppose antiwar activism. Where did I learn this?

Back in 2011, Pew Research Center found that half the liberty movement is very rejecting of pacifism.

Outside of the LP anyway, 67% of libertarians are Independents as opposed to Democrats or Republicans. To keep us on topic, I must point out more libertarians believe American military might is what ensures world peace than doubt. While it can be guessed that 33% believe war is not the answer to self-evident threats to the American People, 48% accept that war is inherently the only answer to self-evident threats to the American People.

Section Nine of this report, combined with all this military related data and some updates to some of it made in 2014, tells something about most libertarians on average.

Here is what the average is in the libertarian movement

Most libertarians, statistically meaning 54%, just want a domestically focused America that practices an anti-United-Nations brand of multilateralism and values stability over democracy in the GME, while still knowing that stability requires capitalism. Most libertarians, again meaning 54%, want American foreign policy to also be about getting friendlier with European and East Asian markets alike, refusing to sacrifice liberty for greater safety, and recognizing Islam as the world’s most eager religion at the moment to unprovoked war of aggression. Militarily, most libertarians want American foreign policy to be about accepting that most problems in the world would be worse without US interference, accepting that American military vigilance worldwide is what keeps world peace, and that overwhelming military force is always the only way to defeat actual threats to the American people.

Thanks everyone for reading my case against antiwar activist laws and platforms and policies,

~KSP Perkins