Creeping NANNYSTATE “progress” explained!

Statist liberals (criminal extortionist gangsters) always insist you have no right to defend your self, that you must defer all rights and responsibilities to the state guardians’ gang.

The “Nannystate” government presumes is has the right to do all things to people (attack them first) under the guise of doing all things “for” the people – acting, not as their largest, collectively-owned insurance company under a mutually-agreed on, contractual (rights AND responsibilities) mandate, but as an all-knowing, doting but stern parent towards dependent, non-compus-mentis children, who therefore have only the responsibility to obey, and no rights at all.

TheEternalPsychophant

And people as citizens have traditionally deferred their own rights and responsibilities for self-reliant defense of both them selves and of innocent others – including their own children – to their elected and appointed representatives’ “authority” most simply because there was no ruling Golden principle set out and clearly defined under which their public servants should be restrained from acting (as an accessory, not as a replacement, for the individuals’ rights and responsibilities to defend one’s self and others) and because, before the advent of the Internet, it was impractical to hold referendums to revise legislation directly, and the servile appointed judges rarely showed any desire to perform their own duties to strike down bad laws, having been equally schooled in the false notion that they too could have rights without concommitant, corollary responsibilities.

But obviously that is no longer the case.

But right now, these political salesmen “leaders” still presume all powers not specifically restricted, accrue automatically to them selves, an equally false notion which only embodies the criminals’ creed embodied in islamic sharia, that all is allowed (to and for them) which is not specifically forbidden!

Government, (best conceived by Einstein as the largest collectively owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

Bad (“positivist,” “defensively pre-emptive”) laws are crimes because they attack first, by slandering individual citizens as criminals, and so also insisting that they have no inherent right to self-defense.

For instance, ALL “gun (people) control laws:” All any of these so-called “gun control laws” can ever do, is to slander the whole population as guilty until never proven innocent; i.e: “SINCE you have guns, therefore you WILL use them to commit crimes, and NOT to defend yourselves and innocent others, SO we have to take them all away from you first, you criminals!”

Since these slanderous laws accuse everyone without proof, they are by definition also prejudicial frauds, and as such, are illegal crimes in themselves, not valid laws at all.

Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

Everyone should have the moral and legal right to self-defense, and to retributive defense of innocent others.

In fact, all morality is based on agreeing to the social contract of The Golden Rule (Do Not Attack First) and so our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (thereby innocent) others first.

After all, when one chooses to attack first, one’s own choice defines one as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as on’es innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it!

So all valid sub-sequent laws can only logically be elaborations on, and embellishments of, this one Rule: if you choose to attack first in this or these ways, then this or those counter-attacking punishments will be rendered unto you. Simple, isn’t it?

Bear in mind that all threats (aka intimidations, bullyings, coercions, duress, activist agitations, extortions and ‘terrorisms’) ARE (psychological) attacks, so responding with physical violence to a believable threat is both a morally and legally valid response.

And we have a perfect right, if not a responsibility as indicviduals, to counter-attack criminals (and in fact, this is exactly what the courts do, even years later, when the criminals are no longer necessarily even engaged in directly attacking anyone; for, as the falsely-sundered criminal and civil law branches agree: you must pay for what you take!); in this way, revenge IS Justice!

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of The Golden Rule of Law (which simply defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First!”) one can address with lesser, circumstantial “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right, (but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.

The main conceit is that, while the Golden Rule of Law prevents individuals from doing anything either to or for each other without prior consent, but obviously cannot restrict individuals from doing things to and for them selves, the “government” idol actually embodies and replaces all individuals, and thus is empowered to permit itself to restrict all individuals from also doing things to and for them selves (like from growing their own food, defending their own bodies and property, choosing to define their own healthcare needs) etc!

And this process of creeping, criminally-negligent “control” through enforced group-rights-might extortion, is what they call “progress!”

Related articles HERE.

Advertisements

About unclevladdi

Vojvoda
This entry was posted in Crime, economics, Education, Globalization, gun control, human rights, islam, Legal, muslim, Policy, politics, progressive, propaganda, Regulation, religion, Treason, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Creeping NANNYSTATE “progress” explained!

  1. Pingback: December 7: Then And Now – Rearmament Versus Moral Disarmament | Vladdi's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s