A former political leader in the US cannot make a conceptual distinction between free will and voluntary action, even after having it explained to him in the simplest terms possible.

This guy is not even a liar — he’s just fucking stupid.

 
Sell lemonade without a permit in your front yard, stop, or face thousands in fines, and/or imprisonment.

Refuse to pay, refuse to be locked in a cage, and you’ll be shot when you defend yourself.

Grow a tree in your back yard?

If it’s not the right kind, you’ll be forced to remove it.

Refuse to remove it and you’ll be fined thousands. Refuse to pay and you’ll be imprisoned. Refuse to go to jail — by defending yourself — and you’ll be shot and most likely killed by armed law enforcement officers.

You have a right to sell lemonade on your own property. Anyone crazy enough to violate your right to do this, with a gun, deserves to be shot in turn.

This is how fucked up this country is. You sell lemonade on your own property only when we allow you to, or you die. It’s very sad how easily fooled people are. A fine or imprisonment with a threat of violence behind it is a death penalty if…

TDL reader Shawn is confused when it comes to what a right is.

In one example he writes,

If the government’s only responsibility is to protect their citizens lives, property, and liberty – how does this NOT effect their responsibility to EDUCATE their citizens on health. When not doing so could KILL these citizens.

His basic premise is that since you have a right to your life, you subsequently have a right to be educated on XYZ topics, because a lack of education on those topics could result in death. In this particular case, Shawn is fixated on valid health and dietary knowledge. He is convinced that it is government’s responsibility to provide this, potentially life-saving knowledge, and if they don’t educate you, they are violating your rights.

This is of course logically absurd on every level you care to examine the basic premise.

The most easily observable is that if you had a right to knowledge, how could it be limited to just one area of life? That right would have to encompass…

In 2012, you’re living in a dream world if you do not see the rapid slide towards complete and total collapse of society, of an orwellian flavor, on an unprecedented scale, and penetrating every level and arena of life. The world at large is approaching bankruptcy, already bankrupt, and in many cases, already well past bankruptcy.

The world has become intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt, culturally bankrupt, ethically bankrupt, financially bankrupt, emotionally bankrupt, politically bankrupt, epistemologically bankrupt, bankrupt of our health, of our physical well being, of our honesty, and of our integrity.

Any way in which you wish to put it, the world, in sum total, is bankrupt to the highest degree possible.

But is there still hope?

I would say yes. And it rests in young men. Not old men. Not middle aged men. Not young women. Not old women. Not middle aged women. Not children.

Young men.

Men who are physically healthy, psychologically mature, and who have not given up their ideals.

This could be an 18 year old, a 25 year old,…

Apparently a 20 year old young man died protecting his girlfriend.

Gee, how heroic, how manly, how selfless of him to do such a thing.

This kind of false glamorizing makes me want to fucking puke. Above all, because it attempts to box heroism and masculinity into this absurd notion that they rest primarily on how selfless one acts and how much one is willing to sacrifice.

Think about how low the morality of a culture has sunk to drool over his death.

If he had lived there would be little discussion of this incident.

And what if he had been carrying a concealed weapon and shot the asshole before a single person was hurt?

There would be no fuss. No discussion. And if the laws in the State where this took place did not protect the right of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on college campuses, he would potentially be facing a decade or more in prison, in spite of defending himself and saving lives.

He would be subject to getting anally raped in…

I’ll start this post by clearly stating that Gary Johnson’s character as a man is light years beyond 99% of the politicians serving in office today. His positions on “the issues” are in the same boat, in that they are not even in the same class as those who claim to present equally valid alternatives.

With that said, the REAL reason Gary Johnson does not have a snowball’s chance in hell in winning the 2012 presidential race has nothing to do with what the mainstream political and media establishment has told you — it is smack dab in the banner above.

It is one of his official campaign slogans.

That slogan is “live free”, and it is representative of Gary’s deepest philosophical convictions.

And what’s wrong with “live free”?

It lacks it’s other half: or die.

It is the political equivalent of

A = ?

or

A =

Instead of A=A.

Without it’s other half it refrains from being a black and white political statement.

This is the other half of “live free” expressed in physical reality.