What I might do if I my efforts to grow the LP go nowhere by November 2017

democrat-republican-1

I am at very high risk of needing to sell out the 2-party system. Which one should I try penetrating though?

I am unsure what direction I should go in to advance Liberty in America and around the world.

Okay so I see my efforts to grow the LP are having indisputably no payoff. I have friends including one from work who are all members of my ‘Cheshire Liberty Town Camp’, a Libertarian Party institution that has a grand total of… eight members. No-one is joining, even though I have raised large awareness of it, but this is not the only thing pushing me in the head to quit the Libertarian Party.

Why I want to quit the Libertarian Party.

Basically, it is a list of factors, meaning incentives, in chronological order. Allow me to list them like this.

  1. First on Facebook they censored the intellectually legendary Kevin Bjornson, 2nd in command of a caucus I am into called Libertarian Defense Caucus, from their Facebook wall.
  2. Before, during and after the above wrong; the LP stuck obsessively to the pile of mold I call Antiwar dot trash for foreign policy instead of truly reputable sources like RealClearWorld and RealClearDefense.
  3. Then in the 2016 election when they garnered their chance to destroy the 2-party system and political corruption in general by Austin Petersen… they did all they could to obstruct him, especially in Colorado.
  4. Once it was time for the ending of primary season, they nominated their worst option instead of their obvious best option who was truly Austin.
  5. Lastly, the nuking point for me was when that thing they call their Vice Chair went on Facebook and rigged a status update for everyone to see right on memorial day. A status update of him declaring all US troops to be mindless heartless murderers and having the audacity to compare them to the insolent DEA!

Where my Electoral Future lies…

I am not sure. All I know is I am quitting the Libertarian Party. Ideologically, there are no worries warranted regarding my principles and I. Frankly, until I pass away, I will still…

  1. Support free trade
  2. Support laissez-faire in general
  3. Want the entire American tax code repealed
    • and favor starting over from scratch with the FairTax
  4. Support gay marriage
  5. Equally oppose both abortion and the death penalty
  6. Oppose abstinence only and the War on Drugs
  7. Prefer individual choice over government regulation
  8. Advocate a foreign policy meshing Empire of Liberty with Capitalist Peace Theory
  9. Believe a free society only stays free by having an immensely powerful military
  10. Demand unconditional free expression for the sake of the flourishing of science and of atheism

However, I am going to find a party affiliation. I have massive problems with the idea of me trying to redirect either party to my ends, as follows.

Rights and Wrongs with going Republican

Rights

  1. In every 100 Republicans and 100 Democrats, there are 12 liberty Republicans and 6 freedom Democrats.
  2. America’s electoral map is an ocean of red with tiny Caribbean clones of blue.
  3. I have more values in common with the Republicans than with the Democrats, says iSideWith, 47% of Republican values compared to 27% of Democrat
  4. The Republican Liberty Caucus was founded on giving Pro-Military, Pro-Israel, Pro-Empire-of-Liberty libertarians like me a new electoral home.
  5. The GOP has plenty of fringe opinion clubs on social issues that I can gleefully get along well with.

Wrongs

  1. Donald Trump has proven himself to be someone I want nothing in common with, not even party affiliation.
  2. Some of the Republican Liberty Caucus lately is going, very remorsefully, to Non-interventionism, the foreign policy ideology that’s proven in practice to do nothing about the global growth of liberty except allow statism aka tyranny to push this growth backwards, globally.
  3. Perhaps the GOP tribalism might be tougher for me to push aside than is currently my electoral life in the LP.

And with going Democrat

Rights

  1. My politics were initially that of a John F. Kennedy style ‘freedom Democrat’, until I fled the Democrats to go be in the LP.
  2. I live in a state, Connecticut, where Democrats fare better normally than Republicans
  3. The Democrats have their own version of the RLC, called the Democrat Freedom Caucus.
  4. I was raised by a couple of strong Democrats but never was more loyal than ‘Independent lean Democrat’.

Wrongs

  1. The party since JFK times has been taken over by cultural marxist, self incriminated, flagrantly bullying swine.
  2. Democrats, after JFK, built a foreign policy record of retreat, defeat, surrender, appeasement, apology, Antiwar candidates, Non-interventionism, and of being respectful to Tyranny-states; all of which ~ again ~ do nothing about world advancement of liberty except for reverse it.
  3. Only 6% of Democrats fit the label ‘freedom Democrat’ and/or ‘JFK Democrat’.

Conclusion

I might just return to where my heart and mind are electorally… being registered to vote as an Unaffiliated Voter. Independents like I am at heart make up 70% of the liberty movement. Thanks all my readers!

~KSP Perkins

Suicidal Foreign Policy Actions and Exempting Healthcare from Freedom of Choice ~ A Donald Trump Update

maxresdefault

Been a while since I genuinely cared what this cult of personality was or is up to! What is new?

After seeing this video [warning; some mature language; if that’s not for you then the video is not for you]…

…I decided to craft my own perspective on the three things that were touched on there. Firstly, Donald Trump recently revisited his travel ban from seven different Greater Middle East nations. Secondly, Trump is selling $35 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia per year for ten years. Thirdly, his replacement of Obama Care with Trump care is being skewed even by the video as mandating coverage denial. Okay, so allow me to break these down from my own unique angle.

Part One; Travel Bans vs Freedom of Movement

Okay, so unlike CNN, Politico provides actually impartial reporting on the travel being partly in effect until October. Apparently the only reasons people from Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are allowed to travel to America are education and family. For example, they are not allowed to travel here for business trips or to visit musicians who perhaps visited them first.

Now from a foreign policy perspective this makes no sense at all, because the state sponsors of 9/11 are not on the list. That is; Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt, and Afghanistan are, in order from biggest degree to smallest degree, the state sponsors of 9/11 and of ISIS. So if the idea is to stop travel from nations who have sponsored 9/11 and as of 2011 are sponsors of ISIS, then why ban a random slew of nations who has little if anything to do with 9/11 or with ISIS?

As for the immigration perspective this is against the 9th and 14th amendment rights to respectively freedom of movement and equal treatment under the law. Now, I am not denying the negatives of Europe having adopted total open borders, what I am going to say to you is this. That’s not a lesson in how there is anything good at all about nationalism, which spoiler alert there is nothing right with nationalism. Instead, this is a lesson why we need to merge total freedom of movement with the historic Ellis Island vetting system. Basically that means medical exam, moral exam, English class, Civics class, done. And by done I mean “free to formally apply for citizenship”. It has nothing to do with Amnesty because from what I know, amnesty is being arbitrarily granted citizenship without having to fill out any kind of application. And I speak that as a 3rd side of the immigration and refugee debate, a side that says exactly as I do. The libertarian and objectivist hybrid side of the refugee debate.

Part Two; The Weapon Sales To America’s Enemies

Ugh— why exactly are we selling weapons to the biggest-time foe of the seven I singled out above? Seven countries who are known to sponsor Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but nowadays mainly ISIS! Far as I’m concerned, the Hamas and Hezbollah sponsoring nations of Iran, Syria, and Iraq are really just secondary targets of American Self Defense. But selling weapons to those who should be our primary targets is nothing short of suicidal.

And we are selling them $35 billion of annual weaponry for ten years! That will basically be enough for Saudi Arabia and its six fellow ISIS-sponsors to put ISIS up to a massive domination if not destruction attack against the American People. One that will make 9/11 look in comparison like a matter of 3000 people stubbing their toes all at once.

A proper policy with regard to the Greater Middle East, to me, is an instant and soulless ending for the primary foes. Meaning the total destruction of any and all Legit Military Targets under Saudi, Pakistani, Qatari, Emirati, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Afghan control. Not only this I also say include any and all political establishment actors and institutions in those nations as legit military targets. After these regimes are destroyed, we need to bring most of the victors home and leave a few thousand behind to allow a free society [aka capitalism] to take root.

Part Three; Still no freedom of Healthcare choice!

Anyone who interprets me honestly knows I am very into the notion that total freedom of choice is the answer to every question in standard of living. But medically, no, instead We The People have to settle for what I call “Reducing Normal Obama Care to Diet Obama Care”. And here is what TJ who did the video I opened on linking to is saying. He is saying that people are going to be forced to give up their health insurance under this new bill.

Two problems I have hearing this from someone I have my atheism and my live & let live outlook on lifestyles in common with. One; wasn’t TJ very against Obama Care for being, in his words, “A mandate to buy private insurance” and “Essentially just a gift to private insurance companies“? What it really does, from what I can gather, is it gives up on forcing Americans to buy private insurance. And in essence it is the revoking of that corporatist approved gift to private health insurers. And the new bill does this by ending the individual mandate, from what I can read from Wikipedia who TJ screen capped from. No, I am not defending the bill, I am just pointing out features that I don’t think were pointed out in the video. I accept that generally it is not the healthcare reform we need. What is needed?

To me, the answer is in four words. Total Freedom of Choice. Basically this means I think the answer is to pass a bill that has nothing to do with Obama Care or Diet Obama Care, one that does something totally different. One that motivates market competition for insurers to provide the best health insurance possible for the lowest prices that Supply And Demand will allow. That way, consumers will not need to stick to plans where the health insurance companies can treat them anyhow as the companies will get consumer money no matter what. Instead, health providers will only get their monthly profits by treating their communities like family. And that ethic will be for the same reason as the prices: Lack of Subsidies.

Thanks for reading!

~KSP Perkins

I Want Nothing to do with Pitch Perfect 3

erb-lincoln

Is PP3 F—ing Kidding Me With This Blah Blah Blah!?

I promise my reasons are not about me being political

Instead, it is the movie trailer itself that is overtly occupied with politics. Hollywood is not even trying to hide its bias against liberalism, and for anti-liberal Marxism, anymore. And the Pitch Perfect Three trailer is unconditionally evidence to prove this fact of life. I will be describing this trailer in objective & neutral detail to everyone as I am not wanting anyone to have any incentive to go see the movie it’s advertising.

What I saw in the first trailer

So, like 20 seconds in they are painting far-left radical marxist lies about Western Culture as reality. First was the lie that no Westerner believes women can win at anything but culinary arts. Then was the lie that white privilege and thin privilege are somehow realities. And they topped this 20 seconds off with the lie that women are systemically oppressed in aspiring to be surgeons. So I count my blessings that this triple-dishonesty painting of theirs didn’t give me AIDS. Next, we see the one of the protagonists who is not slim wearing a red hat that says ‘Make America Eat Again’. Like my god… I can write good jokes, and real satire, that even teen girls would prefer over this trash! How on Earth do I not have a depressed skull fracture from having seen this vile film trailer, again? And as for the trailer’s side of this story, how is it not overtly occupied with far-left partisan tribalism again?

What I make of the trailer

As someone who more often doesn’t mind dumb looking trailers, this trailer is way too stupid for me to have any respect for human life if it even makes One Dollar off people seeing it. I genuinely hope this movie’s theatrical turn out puts all involved in its creation into irrevocable and unsustainable monetary debt to the world around them!

And if there are any actors and/or actresses in this ‘Pitch Tribalism Three’ as I call it, who are tremendously talented who are in this upcoming garbage… You guys are murdering no-one’s public image but yours by doing this movie. And if you lose your careers to this movie then…

Know I will be seeing to it you cannot restore due to newer, at-least-as-well-acting actors and actresses taking over the acting market in place of you. I will adamantly oppose any sympathy being directed at you for this movie having ended your respective careers.

What People should watch instead (this is the part where and when I cheer you readers and also myself up)

Guys and Gals, why not come to my Vid.me channel and follow it while I post videos there every Thursday, every Friday and every Saturday? I will be posting there starting this very week and I will do the recordings for it Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. There are four shows you can see therefore I will have, when Hollywood is poisoning the Christmas Well at theaters with the infernal trash I talked about above, Four Christmas Specials. These shows are (genre in brackets):

  • Free Society Diary (Politics)
  • Battle for Middle-Derp (Gaming)
  • Militant Evolutionist (Brainfood)
  • Cloth N Cook (Lifestyle)

And the Christmas Specials (CS) will be as follows:

  • Free Society Diary CS = “How the Saudi King Stole Christmas!”
  • Battle for Middle-Derp CS = “Durin’s Bane the Snowman!” (featuring re-textured Balrog!)
  • Militant Evolutionist CS = “Merry Saturnalia, fellow Christmas Lovers!”
  • Cloth N Cook CS = “Forging Santa’s Workshop out of meat alone”

So please, look forward to those! Thanks in all my readers!

~KSP Perkins

Insurance Mandates vs Freedom of Movement & Freedom of Choice

500px-evacuated_highway_401_color

Le happy Muh Roads meme. Oh wait, this post is not about roads! It is about my opposition to this driver insurance mandate crap.

It all started when I heard about some family of mine having insurance troubles.

First I went on a totally pointless walk to try and fail to return my bike tubes for having the wrong kind of valve tube. See, my bike’s back tire busted when I was on the bridge that connects Cheshire (my town) to Wallingford (a town I like biking to on mid summer’s eve every month of hot season). I was trying to go to Wallingford to buy programs to get my Battle for Middle-earth modifying matter onto my Macbook Pro. Instead I ended up needing to replace the bike tubes.

Once I got home from that, one of my family relatives came home… and she tells me her insurance expired. Also, there’s, I guess, a law mandating arrest, conviction and jailing for anyone who lacks insurance. Here, I am going to focus my reader base that just keeps getting more global on how hazardous insurance mandates are. On the health of the civil right to freedom of movement, but also on the economic liberty called freedom of choice.

How Insurance Mandates are inherently bad for the freedom of movement

Here is the more relevant segment of this post. Thus, I will make this segment much longer than the next. Basically, this law I heard from my family relative says if you do not have car insurance then you can be arrested and jailed for using the car you legally own. Now don’t get me wrong, I do think drivers need to earn and retain driving licenses by learning and following rules of the road at all times. But I also believe that to force everyone to buy car insurance is going disgustingly overboard. And thus is getting into the “You have no freedom of movement anymore” zone. Which is an inherently immoral zone to get into, especially if you are a cop or politician or other government officer.

As such these principles of mine have lead me to ask this relative of mine “Are you violating someone else or their belongings by lacking car insurance?” And she said stuff to me that lead me into saying “Please think about what the question was cuz I only need a yes or a no.” Her reply was that car owners do need to have car insurance. Now, I believe her on this absolutely! But I refuse to ever believe that arresting and incarcerating people on what comes off to me as a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ basis, is the utmost worst way to go about it.

Now, I do not plan on owning a car until I have finished two years of studying Software Engineering at Gateway Community College. And to make time for a larger store of work-hours per week I desire to take the software engineering courses online. I’ll save the making new friends aspect of life for when I apply what skills I learned to earn my associate degree to an actual software engineering job. Kinda like what I do now except with a much easier time turning more relatable folks into honest friends.

But when I do get to car ownership, I guarantee you my reaction to having car insurance for the first time is not going to be anything favorable to this mandatory insurance law. I am going to create a petition to get all insurance mandates abolished overnight, even though that is something that legally, only Congress can do.

How insurance mandates are always bad for the freedom of choice

Even though I think everyone needs to buy insurance, I also think people need to be personally responsible in ways like saving up for insurance. There are other ways one can afford insurance, too, I realize. I must also highlight that even economists can agree from all manner of ideological viewpoints to oppose income taxes. See, income taxes are constantly one god-tier reason many poor, working class and even middle class are willing but unable to buy insurance for car, health, or whatever else.

Plus, no one private company should have any kind of monopoly on the sale of insurance. Natural economics means allowing insurance prices to reflect supply and demand, i.e. if insurers get fewer customers than they have supply for, prices get low. Although, there is the question of how insurers would be punished for ripping off their customers! Frankly, insurance customers would make negative reviews and solicit boycotts, because there would not be government bailout of fraudulent insurers in a fully civilized economy.

Well, that’s all I got. Thanks and bye, readers!

~KSP Perkins

Interrogating neolibertarianism as a neolibertarian myself

democrat-republican-1

As I want nothing to do with the idiocy summed up here, I am going to interrogate my own political ideology.

First off, what is neolibertarianism?

Basically, it is perhaps the most poorly understood sector in the entire doctrine of free will. In other words, it is the least understood line of thinking within the ‘free enterprise & civil rights first’ line of thinking. I am trying to avoid referencing any other labels besides neolibertarian in this post for the same reason I am doing this post in the first place. To question my own beliefs, and to reveal to everyone at the end of this post that even my own political ideology ~ neolibertarianism ~ does not agree with me on everything!

What is it though!?

Okay, okay. A neolibertarian like me is basically a libertarian who advocates the assertive promotion of capitalism and individual liberty in world affairs by both diplomatic means and military means alike. This basically makes us similar to but different from the neoconservatives due to the difference between democratic peace theory vs capitalist peace theory. Plus our contrast to neocons is due to the difference between democracy and liberty, and also the difference between defending interests and defending individual rights.

Okay, now I can get into the meaning of this post

Select Smart. This post I would like to deem tribute to them as they are the folks to credit for my awareness of this label. I learned this label in 2010 and had no idea that it was the exact word for who I am politically as of 2008 when I saw the history of dictatorship barbarism across human history. Learning this history made me doubt the idea that human nature is in any way totally good! But yes, I had no idea this label existed until 2010 when Select Smart filled me in on it.

However, are there other differences between myself vs what I can learn from select smart about my ideology? Yes! There just so happen to be!

Firstly, I have found that my support for replacing our current national tax system with just a national sales tax is not the norm in my ideology. Instead the tax policy norm of neolibertarianism is a flat tax wherein all citizens are taxed equally.

Secondly, I apparently conflict with my own ideology on unilateralism. Basically, I believe that every free society should only be duty-bound to its own citizens. For example I think America has a duty to defend me, no matter who’s soil I’m on, but Britain and Israel only have rights to defend me this globally but not duties. And also because I find it immoral to promote respect for the laws or the sovereignties of nations who flagrantly use terrorism, genocide, torture and slavery as means of exerting dominance over any human being.

Thirdly, there is the minimum wage thing. Personally, as a working class person in terms of gross income, I look at proposals for Living Wage like this. If we are going to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, then that I deem will require these six economic policies to be enacted first.

End of Post

Thanks for reading, but I suspect I will find more to disagree with everything and everyone but me on, my own ideology included!

~KSP Perkins

Why I Wish I Bought Bitcoins Right When I turned 18. Also, what I’ll do to earn mass wealth instead.

spending-bitcoins

Physical Bitcoins. Do they even exist outside of Bitcoin headquarters?

Bitcoin value seems to be on the very heavy rise!

In essence, I never fully understood bitcoins until very recently. And I wish I had understood them right from when they began in 2008 or 2009. Because then I would be able to buy lots of them when their value was very low, and when their value jumped to the $2300 per bitcoin value it sits at today, I’d be able to set myself for life by selling them all! Here is my explanation for why that is.

Back when I turned 18…

The year was 2012 on Day 6 of the month May. And the value of Bitcoins was inching its way from $2 per bitcoin to $13 per bitcoin. Given that I got plenty of American dollars as birthday presents back then, I suspect with what I got I could have bought perhaps 50 bitcoins over the course of the year of 2012.

Then Bitcoins became worth on average $168 each in 2013, and rose through 2014 to now!

So as I graduated High School, I got enough congratulations money to be able to buy 5 or 6 more bitcoins, based on just this average.

Next in 2014 bitcoins were worth about $670 each on average. This is when I got my grocer job in October of that year. Making about $90 a week net pay meant that on annual pay meant I could afford 6 or 7 bitcoins in 2014.

Then 2015 came along, and indeed the value dropped to $377 per bitcoin on year’s average! What a treat this would have been for me to act on, too! For I was making about $160 weekly net pay. Times 52 weeks for a year that means I could have bought 22 more bitcoins in 2015!

Naturally, 2016 for me was the year that came off obsessed on making my luck vary, slightly more often in positive ways, all year! Because my adamant backing of REAL 45th American President Austin Petersen (I wish he was!) all year had tons of payoff until the general election day when an inept bleach blond haired clementine defeated Austin. Also, for a truly relevant example to this topic, I was making enough that I could have spent on 17 more bitcoins.

What would I have now if I then sold my bitcoins right now after years of buying them up?

Frankly, these numbers of bitcoins would add up to, in total, 100 bitcoins. I could have then sold them for, given current bitcoin value, a total sum of $230,000! However, I would not instantly blow it all onto a high life. Instead I would likely budget it for a simple life (apartment, road bike, internet, my drawing stuff, my Bfme2 modding stuff, college) on an annual basis for a decade-long term.

How I will attain mass wealth early on instead.

Basically I am considering opening up a Patreon account for each of my different entertainment projects: my Battle for Middle-earth 2 (Bfme2) mod, my unique medieval-like fantasy mythology, and my multi-topic show on Vidme. And yes, I promise I will do a kind of ‘sequel’ to this post where I tell about what the Vidme show is about and also what it’s hosting site is about. Thanks!

~KSP Perkins

How to Fix Failing Schools? It’s a Multi Step Process, But Here Is How!

tumblr_static_tumblr_static__640

All this cosmic beauty. And kids are not learning about it. This’s only one problem schools in general tend to have these days.

Why I am Posting this

Basically, I am someone who believes bigger education spending does not inherently mean higher quality education. I also refuse to believe that education spending cuts do any harm to educational institutions. Instead I think the reality is that all government can do to education without damaging the national average IQ is make K-12 mandatory for all children. Yes, there is a stark difference between this mandate versus directing curriculums and budgets.

Socialists Censor the Nuance between Government and Culture

I will get this right out of the way right off the bat. Just because I want government role in education limited to just mandating K-12 for all does NOT pit me against the very idea of education! You see, socialists and statists and various other sorts of Far Left Anti-liberalism activists censor all they can about the nuance between government and society. They will make the argument that “Oh, you don’t want kids to be smart” or “You would rather kids go to church than school” or “You think only rich people should be allowed an education”. Notice how none of these mainstream arguments by the Far Left have anything to do with facts and instead are venomously fixated on emotion.

The other day I saw this video on someone’s Facebook wall about Trump’s education budget plan. Now, the arguments they make in this video I suspect are mostly lies. It was a video by a mostly lying activist club called The Other 98%. So, of course I doubted all of their emotional, put-words-in-our-dissenter’s-mouth arguments they make about why Trump’s secretary of whatever is cutting budgets and emphasizing private schools.

And that is exactly the favorite way of socialists to censor their opposition. Putting words in their dissenters’ mouths.

On to the actual topic at hand!

Frankly, there is broad consensus on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that bigger education budget does not inherently mean better performance. Using my great country America as the example, America has done better in the PISA when its government spendings on education were at their lowest. For example, in 2000 when government spending on ed was $54 billion, Science score was 15th highest in the world. Then in 2003 when government spending on ed jumped to $83 billion, the Science score for our country plummeted to 22nd in the world. Next, raising education spending to $89 billion in 2006 lowered our Science score in PISA to 29th on Earth. In 2009, Education Spending by Government lowered to $45 billion, therefore education quality (the science score) jumped to 23rd. Lastly in 2012 when government spending on education hiked to $106 billion the PISA score for the USA in Science lowered to 28th on Earth.

So basically the more involvement government has in education besides mandating K-12 for all, the worse students perform. Now what’s so great about mandating K-12? If that’s the only power in education government has, then it cannot set the curriculum for teachers, instead parents set it. Plus, given this, parents will voluntarily pay the teachers and the smarter students get, the higher teachers are paid. This is known as freedom of education, a system where for the K-12 part parents can choose to have their students educated in accordance with their secular or religious moralities. What about college?

So far as I can tell, college age is when it can be and should be entirely up to the student to choose what specific classes they want to pay for. And as someone looking to go to a community college, I can assure you I want to be able to choose which courses to go to. I would love to be able to pay for classes in Geology, Geography, Biology and Environment. As you can tell by this external link, I wish to take those classes and become a paleontologist.

Why it matters to be able to pay according to quality of teaching

Basically, if government is able to steal money from a worker’s paycheck and dump it onto teachers then teachers will have no incentive to care how their students perform. Therefore students will have no incentive to care about their grades!

Meanwhile, if education funding is a matter of parents buying for their students the courses the students themselves want, then teachers are under the best scrutiny for students to see their teachers under: parental scrutiny.

That means if the teachers do not teach well then the student’s performance will reflect that, and the parent will demand and get refund and pick a different teacher for her kid to learn the same course material from.

Does there need to be an Education industry equal to Yelp, Meta Critic, IMDB etc?

Why, I do think this idea will be a requirement for full freedom of education! Frankly this is because the right to make honest reviews of products and services is not a niche feature. Meaning it is not a non-universal feature, instead the ability to make reviews is (or should be) around for every consumer for every industry.

And if you think no-one will punish bad service under total freedom of education, then that’s how I know the concept of customer feedback is unconditionally foreign to you! Because if I go to buy a school book from Amazon, for example, and the most up-voted review is a one or two star review that says things like these;

  • It’s heavily biased to far left or far right politics
  • It’s brazenly blurring religion and science
  • It’s filled cover to cover with basic scientific errors

Then I do not buy that school book! Simple as that. Thanks!

~KSP Perkins

I don’t care how you dress for spring & summer in your free time, here is why

6b176ff9f8594c452a60408e10dc98fd

No, this is not my wardrobe. I just picked this off Google Images.

Something I wanted to get off my chest for, like, ever.

If there is any belligerence I am totally and utterly done with, it is people getting belligerent to each other for how one dresses for his or her free time in the springs and summers. I guess I better get the disclaimers on this topic out of the way right here.

Basically, if it is a workplace with a dress code that workplace has a property right, therefore a human right, to impose a dress code onto the on-duty, on-schedule workers during their work-time. Also, if the season is winter or even autumn, then I would advise a friend of mine or a family relative of mine to cover up massively because I worry about them getting frostbite. Always, if I disagree with how someone else dresses in the moment, it will be for a legitimate medical reason about skin health or other bodily health. But this country of mine is not Iran and I am not Hassan Rouhani. That’s just one small way out of many ways to know I do not care how you dress for springs & summers in your free time. Now, let’s dig into why.

My rationale for not caring what you wear to your free time activities come spring & summer

Basically, the only person who I should care about the fashion sense of is me. When someone complains to me about some nearby woman is dressed revealingly in late spring, I am always dismissive of that complainer. Specifically, I may dismiss the complainer very politely and with the purest of classy talk verbally & vocally. But deep down in my brain stem I am thinking “Yeah, whatever, Al Bagdadi, stuff your hatred of women for dressing in ways you never would if you were female into a box and ship it to ISIS land”.

Yeah, deep down inside I am very eager to fight rude & trashy with just more rude & trashy. But I recognize that such behavior has nothing to do with smarts or wisdom, so I don’t. Instead I just say something politely passive. I honestly find it nauseating that people want to engage in this arbitrary, tyrannical outrage toward how other women and/or other men dress. Entirely because we have legit problems around the world and even well within America. We have 80k regulations crippling small business far worse than they cripple giant corporations. We have right here in Connecticut my entire state as a whole going bankrupt from ultra high taxes on par with far greater spending. The key there being the much larger spendings. We have the Iran Deal having empowered Iran to have a better shot at its explicitly stated goal of killing all 325 million Americans.

Yet plenty of people would much rather whine and farm complaints and chain-cry and bitch… about people dressing for the heat in ways they disagree with! It’s obscenity to me. Reminder to me of why I call one of my social issues principles ‘mutual respect between all lifestyles’. Thanks!

~KSP Perkins

Who Would I Vote For (As of 2017)?

awake

I do not buy into false dichotomies. Or anything that comes off as one.

As of Late January to Early February 2017, and including now, this is the official ‘who I would vote for’ portfolio of Kyle Stoddard ‘Perkino’ Perkins.

Okay, so I have done this at least once a year every year since 2014, when I started this blog. Back then, I was someone who was electorally a Center-right (meaning barely Republican enough to qualify as GOP material) and religiously a Secular-morality Deist.

These days, I am a secular morality atheist with a purist commitment electorally to make to forging the Libertarian Party of America into the dominant party of American elections. Including and primarily by means of making it the dominant party in Cheshire, my town in Connecticut. However, I must also do this by forging it into a party that promotes Fiscal conservatism from within the Digital Economy, endorses Cultural liberalism from within the Constitution, and adopts a foreign policy of the following principles.

  1. Superpower US Military
  2. American Exceptionalism
  3. Unilateral Free Trade
  4. Anticipatory Self Defense
  5. Capitalist Peace Theory

Anyway, time for me to go into the fine details.

In America from 2017 until I am dead because elderly (which I predict will be in the 2060’s), I’ll vote for.

  1. Libertarian Party

Why? Re-read the introductory content for the first reasons why. But allow me to be more clear on the leadership role to add more reasons why.

I am the founder and director of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee. And if anything is true about my electoral needs, I am going to need to stop splitting tickets. I am going to need to hurry up and run Cheshire citizens for public offices. After educating them about a properly effective libertarianism at dominating Cheshire CT town level politics.

But the reason I chose the Libertarian Party over either of the main two is because it is very obvious that the two main parties are one in the same. The only difference is that they disagree over whether to make America another Soviet Russia (what SJW Democrats want) or another Nazi Germany (what ‘Trumpkin’ Republicans want).

In Ireland from 2017 to present, I would vote for.

  1. Fine Gael

Why? Because, from what historic factoids I can learn about them, these guys domestically combined a longtime commitment to fiscally libertarian policies with, so far, an 85 year evolution on culture for them to be slowly but surely more into Civil libertarianism.

From what I know about Fine Gael thanks to Mark Humphrys, one of my top political influencers, they are Pro-Defense, Pro-America and Pro-Israel all in one foreign policy package.

And this part is only here because I am ethnically about half or more Irish.

In Britain, based on recent events, who’d I vote for.

  1. Tory Party (aka Conservative Unionist Party)

Why? Even though I am an adamant supporter of federalism, it is clear to me that of all British parties the Tories come closest to my beliefs on a core values and principles level.

Not much else to say about Britain at the moment.

In France, based on recent events, who I’d vote for.

  1. Les Republicans (no, not the GOP. Just their own party in the French electorate)

Why? Because from what policy ideas I can attribute to them, they come off to me as the leading party in standing for the principles listed numerically below.

  1. Free Enterprise
  2. Personal Freedom
  3. Equal Opportunity (no, not equal outcome!)
  4. Rule of Law
  5. Free Expression
  6. Freedom of Association
  7. Freedom of the Media
  8. Religious Liberty

And on foreign policy, from what I can gather from their defeated 2017 presidential candidate, is about destroying the Islamic Totalitarian threat to humanity at its source. Specifically by destroying State Sponsors of Jihadi Terrorism. However, their candidate lost the election by selling out, from what I have heard about him, hence I do not mention his name. Please ask someone else for his name.

Conclusion

Basically, I am a center-right, culturally liberal guy with strong support for free markets, small government, and humanist culture. With a foreign policy mindset of unilateral free trade, anticipatory self defense, and capitalist regime change; here is my rationale for the third principle. And that decides how I would vote. And how I plan to make the Libertarian Party electable. Thanks everyone!

~KSP Perkins

The Policy Agenda of the Libertarian Defense Atheist Page 2 Personal Liberty

james-madison

The Only James Madison pic I will ever use on this blog.

Personal Liberty

Abortion

Given a choice between the two options of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, which side I am on depends on whether it is after the fifth month of a pregnancy. If yes, then I am Pro-Life but if no then I am Pro-Choice. I support a woman’s right to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy before the unborn has a viability, and in human pregnancy viability begins in the final days of Month Five. I oppose the idea of allowing an unborn with viability to be forcibly torn out of the womb, meaning I think abortion should only be a crime during months six through nine, and even then the police should only go after the clinic.

LGBTQ Rights & Marriage

I support a full on policy of marriage privatization. I want lesbians, gay people, bisexual people, all transgendered and all queer to be totally free to marry who they romantically get along with. I also want them all free to adopt the first kid from an adoption center that looks at them favorably, even free to identify with all the fictional genders (third genders) they desire, as long as they are not forcing biologists to present those as real genders.

War on Drugs

Only two things about the concept of recreational drugs sicken me and one is the lethality of many of them. The other thing that sickens me is our disastrously failing War on Drugs, which was created by Richard Nixon entirely to feign ‘justification’ for murdering hipsters and for butchering black human beings. Not to mention the drug war costs tax payers like my good self an annual $16 billion, which for me means an entire paycheck gets eaten up by the disaster called the federal war on drugs. We need to end the war on drugs and if the drug epidemic conservatives talk about is real, then address it as a medical problem, absolutely not a criminal problem.

Self-Defense and Defense of Others

I fully support the right of men and women to defend themselves and defend innocent people in general against physical force, including with weapons if they feel that this’s necessary. I do not think that government should be forcing it to take anyone weeks to get a gun or to get any other weapon or to learn unarmed combat. Basically, I believe in a policy that decides that if someone was convicted of an act of fraud, theft or force then and only then should they have trouble getting guns. Truth is that it’s the government’s guns who need to be severely regulated as those are the guns hundreds of thousands of innocents lose their lives to.

Laws Against Force, Fraud & Theft

As is common sense, the only behaviors that qualify as crimes are behaviors in the categories of fraud, theft and force. And by theft I mean every property crime known to American law enforcement, while force here means every violent crime known to American law enforcement. I propose a 31st Amendment regarding these issues.

Given that violent crimes, property crimes and fraudulent crimes are the only crimes that count as crimes, Congress is hereby barred from making laws against any crimes not in these categories, and is also required to harshly punish crimes of these kinds, and police are hereby forbidden from caring why a violent, property, or fraudulent crime was done.

Freedom of Choice in Lifestyle

Okay, honestly I have nothing against people who eat foods I wouldn’t eat, drink beverages I wouldn’t drink, wear clothes I wouldn’t wear, play video games I wouldn’t play etc. Which is why I do not think government should be able to regulate any industries that cater to various lifestyles. For example, I would never wear revealing clothing, even if I was female, but I can totally tolerate women making their own individual clothing choices. And I expect government to tolerate alternative lifestyles as well, while not forcing them onto people who wish to not engage in any of these.

Next Time…

I talk about Strategic Defense and what exactly the term I used in page 1 of this platform means! Thanks and please sign onto donating $1.75/month to my journalism,
“Subscribe
~LDA