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

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

What Do I Mean By ‘Neighborhood Owned Roads’ When I Call For It?

500px-evacuated_highway_401_color

This road looks kinda dead to me. Was this pic taken in my state of Connecticut? The buildings kinda look like ones I saw in person…😐

The Origin of my desire for neighborhood ownership of roads

Hm… I honestly was not aware of this controversy over road building until I encountered memes made by my POTUS pick for last year, Austin Petersen, satirizing this controversy. And thus my reading about free market roads is totally new to me. Basically, from what I know, free market roads is the principle that roads should either be privatized or decentralized. However, in most other public policy fields, ‘decentralization’ is most associated with federalism, and not with capitalism. Additionally, I can see some problems emerging with market ownership of roads. The biggest problem I see with privatizing roads is my understanding of how roads get built.

What I hear is that the federal government uses federal tax revenue to pay the market to build roads to connect neighborhoods. I have also heard that historically federal government was still able to pay for the best roads for the different phases of US history even in the days between 1776 to 1916 when the feds used nothing but tariffs, aka taxes on global trade, for federal revenue.

Why I’d like to see neighborhoods in charge of roads instead of federal politicians in charge

From how well I get along with my own neighbors, and observing as easily as I do in my walks to other neighborhoods in Cheshire, but also in my cycling trips to Wallingford and Southington, I see next door neighbors far better able to settle disagreement politely and classily than say… Congress people can, for example.

If you live in a neighborhood in America or any other deeply Americanized nation of the world around it, let me ask you. Which kinds of people do you see finding more solutions more often with less eagerness to be rude and/or trashy? Your next door neighbors? Or your national government? Without any kind of ideological filter, please answer in the comment box.

But as for me I see my neighbors are easily able to get along and come together on neighborhood needs. Meanwhile, centralized planning via enforced monopoly by a National government (keyword there being National) inherently leads, in this topic, a lack of any kind of incentive to be ‘keepin’ it real’ with the quality highness and price lowness of roads.

What happens if a road is home to multiple neighborhoods?

Honestly, this is the most severe of questions I need to bother answering from potential future critics of this post as my neighborhood shares a road with at least four other neighborhoods I can either name or describe. Honestly, I think this is where the biggest flaw I see in my own plan comes in. Basically there is something one can whine and complain about within any public policy plan!

For under a policy of neighborhoods owning roads, those of America’s roads which are not home to neighborhoods or are home to many neighborhoods would perhaps lead to disputes over which neighborhood gets ownership of that road.

However, as far as I am concerned, that would be a trivial travesty caused by policies of infinite freedom. And anyone who knows my politics knows I prefer the trivial travesties of infinite freedom over the severe travesties of no freedom. And that’s all I got on who will build the roads! Thanks for reading this people!

~KSP Perkins

California Faced With No Or No Question: Is Weed Legalization To Blame for California Rise in Property Crime?

stoner-boy

This is a guy who likely smokes weed very often, something I personally refuse to ever do but I would rather live in a permissive society than live in rampant tyranny.

The Defacing of Hollywood sign to say “HOLLYWEED” has gotten legalization falsely accused of soliciting property crime.

Ugh; I honestly thought the people of America would have learned by now that property crime, like violent crime, is also caused by barbaric ideas and neither by poverty nor by any sort of anti prohibitionism activist deeds.

Evidently there were some people who have decided to blame the November Eighth Twenty Sixteen Legalization of marijuana for the ruining of Hollywood sign to say ‘Hollyweed‘. The property criminal at least had the modesty to admit it was him and to press charges against himself and to admit what he did was superstitious trashiness.

Honestly I pulled my knowledge of this story right out of the Time Magazine episode that has the Botox story as its front page story. And I have quite a case to make against this branch of prohibitionism.

The History of American Weed

When this country started, on Fourth of July of Seventeen Seventy Six, marijuana was far more often used for making hemp clothes, hemp scarves, hemp bandanas and hemp ropes than it was for making anything to be put into one’s human body. As for Medicinal and Recreational weed; neither one of these uses of marijuana was a normality until the year of 1839.

Starting in 1906, and indeed during World War One, marijuana was regulated only by a little something called the Pure Food And Drug Act. This was a bill demanding people to label not just marijuana but all foods, all drinks, and all ingredients with ingredient lists. Thus the start of why we start to learn weird chemical names from our food and beverage labels!

It was not until late 1930’s when we got our first scenes in United States history of criminalizing marijuana. The only exception I can gather from my research was a demand by the FDR administration for people to use marijuana to make hemp ropes for defensive annihilation tools that happened to have ropes as parts of them.

After World War Two the worst that could happen to someone for breaking laws against marijuana is they get a fine or they serve a sentence not of jail but rather of rehab. It was only when Richard Nixon exploded marijuana criminality into a matter we know today as the War On Drugs, an explosion Nixon did with the intent of filling black people with nothing but deprivation.

Current Status Quo

Nowadays, prohibitionists keep on with telling us many lies with the best of intentions, yet all they are really doing is teaching us hate and it’s indeed backfiring on them with us teaching them fear.

The War on Drugs? We’re needing to break it. The war on drugs has tried to squeeze the life from cartels, but has instead squeezed the life from decent folks.

Easily, I thank anyone reading this for reading and if you like this content then I would ask you to please sign on to donating an obviously measly $1.75 per month; thanks again;
“Subscribe

~LDA

What’s So Great About A Permissive Society?

goldenrule

Something minimalist, like the Golden Rule or the Non-Aggression Principle, would be the only limit to human activity in a permissive society

Permissive Society goes Hand in Hand with Free Market economics

Exactly what is a permissive society, before we begin? Well, according to the book “The Permissive Society: America, 1941 – 1965“, a permissive society is a society of making itself increasingly libertarian about its cultural norms.

The only crimes classed as crimes in a permissive society are acts of physical coercion.

A Permissive society is often seen as a free society wherein social and moral freedom is included with political and intellectual freedom.

Consistency Thing

Remember when I did my piece about how absolute freedom of expression is mandatory to human decency? Well, by the logic I put into that post, the permissive society is the decent society, even though things like M-rated games and R-rated films are minimally regulated if at all.

This is also despite the fact that permissive society means inclusion of freedom from religion within freedom of religion, and freedom to dress revealingly included within freedom of choice.

And to add personal plugs, this is despite the fact that permissive society means freedom to listen to metal music and to enjoy Medieval-like Fantasy universes, even R-rated or M-rated ones, is granted.

How exactly is this consistent? Well, the more freedom is given the more self-control is needed by the individual. To be given character education and to be taught to focus on one’s own self-destructive traits is necessary. And from what I hear from Dave Rubin’s chat with him, Yaron Brook wrote books and essays that I look forward to reading and linking to in future pages. Brook wrote stuff all about how physical coercion crimes like murder and arson and such are self-destructive.

By Libertarian Principles…

A permissive society is the way to address cultural elements, and in fact the Western world’s Age of Enlightenment saw permissive society become the norm of Western Culture.

Of course, this is not a call for anarchy, but rather this is a call for people to take some time to think about how a permissive society is far superior to any kind of substantially restrictive society. There is a need for a Constitutional Republic, and that need is for an entity to protect individuals from physical coercion. I have spoken at least every time I wrote here about foreign policy about that being the legit style and role of government.

Conclusion

Really think about this. Permissive society does require individual self-control, but what permissive society does in results is it makes government corruption almost nonexistent. I say almost because human nature is severely deeply flawed. Thanks for the read,

~LDA

Why My Marriage and All Marriages Need to Be Privatized Tomorrow

560px-wedding_rings

Marriage is simply a romantic union of consenting adults, don’t let religion or government regulate it.

To Regulate Marriage is To Take Joy Out of the Idea of Marriage

Yes, I do plan to marry a woman before I am 25. Personally I am very into slim brunettes with blue eyes but I predict I’ll end up with a slim redhead with green eyes.

My reasoning for preferring as I do is explained in personality trait context. Eye colors explained here. Hair colors explained here. But my preferences are not this topic, rather this is my argument against letting either one of God or government regulate marriage.

Let me explain my position and how this counts as a ‘Yes’ answer to the question of whether gay marriage needs to be legalized.

Marriage Privatization is Liberation

Whether it is traditional marriage or gay marriage, no marriage should have any government regulation of it, not religious and not secular regulation either.

David Boaz wrote and article about why marriage privatization is the only sane marriage policy. He notes that there are two options when keeping marriage a privately owned romance between consenting adults.

Option One is what I guess I’ll call puritanical privatization. This refers to making marriage purely non-governmental and to go this path will result in myself and others who aspire to marry someone being able to cement their romance in a ceremony or ritual.

Option Two is what I’ll perhaps call contractual privatization. This refers to making marriage like any other private contract. The government is only involved to enforce the terms; all the other aspects of the contract, including the terms, are set bilaterally or multilaterally by the newlyweds.

Western Culture Doesn’t Exactly Work Without Marriage Privatization

The secular humanism of the Age of Enlightenment, which modernized Western Culture and made it uniquely libertarian culture, has historically modernized marriage.

John Witte Jr., an author of books about Western cultural history, wrote about this in a 1997 book, from the same year as the David Boaz article.

This book is called “From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion and Law in the Western tradition.”

Perhaps I should buy a copy of this book on Amazon before this year is out.

Conclusion

So, now the globe knows why I want the government out of my marriage. Also humanity now knows about the moral supremacy of marriage privatization. Thank you all my readers;

~LDA

The Vitality of Freedom of Expression

firstamendment_0

Rather clear our Founders were about the need for freedom of expression.

Total Freedom of Expression is Mandatory to Civilized Culture and to Modern Science

People I learn about on other social media are treating freedom of expression like it is optional with regards to modernizing science and to staying a civilized people.

The painful fact of life is, though, that absolute right to unrestricted freedom of expression is the only way to keep scientific and civilizational progress going.

For me this fact of life is not painful, but many on my YouTube subscriptions list have raised awareness in me of individuals and movements who are disgusted by free expression and think banning or limiting it has no negative outcomes.

Human History Vs This Narrative

Nothing in human history has anything in common with this anti-free expression narrative. Basically all of human history is full of examples of less free expression meaning less science as well as less human decency.

Allow me to paraphrase and link to examples of this. Emperor Qin Shi Huang, the individual that China still to this day is named for, murdered scholars all over his empire and was able to do so rampantly because there was little to no free expression.

Over in Medieval Spain, lacking freedom of expression caused the crazily murderous poison we know as the Spanish Inquisition. The intent was to keep absolute power for the Spanish kingdom, and the policies of absolutely no freedom of expression lead to mass torture on national scale for 356 years.

What Free Expression Does For Humanity

By liberating science and by liberating secular freethinking, freedom of expression has rapidly increased human life span from averaging 30 years to averaging 70.

And here in the United States, free expression has been the prerequisite for such social progressions as the humanization of black Americans, and the summer 2015 gay marriage ruling, and countless other examples historically in between. One other such example is the completion of US gender equality in the 1920’s.

So in short, freedom of expression is mandatory for the progress and empathy and civility of humans, and this means that anyone who supports banning or regulating free expression in any field of life at all is, according to human history, automatically a barbarian.

Conclusion

I shall wrap up this piece by defining the official meaning of freedom of expression: The lawful liberty to express ideas freely. Thanks;

~LDA