Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Thursday, 24 January 2019

Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:47 PM (18:47)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D-24), Representative Andrea Romero (D-46), Representative Candy Spence Ezzell (R-58), Representative Angelica Rubio (D-35), Representative Gregg Schmedes (R-22) [1]
CC: Representative Antonio Maestas (D-16) [2], Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-13), Representative Debra M. Sariñana (D-21), Representative Miguel P. Garcia (D-14), Representative Joy Garratt (D-29), Representative Daymon Ely (D-23), Representative Deborah A. Armstrong (D-17), Representative Linda M. Trujillo (D-48)
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019, 12:00 PM MST
Subject: Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Honored Members of the Committee:

First, I am writing to say that some of the legislation under consideration by the committee is not properly labelled as “gun control.” Gun control constitutes the safe, proficient, and proper use of a firearm — the four safety rules, stance, grip, sight alignment and picture, breathing, trigger operation, target selection, etc.

Rather, the legislation in question (HB 8, HB 40, HB 83, HB 87, HB 130) is more properly called “victim disarmament,” in that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who have the most reason to own and carry firearms for self-defense — the little old lady or the paraplegic who lives alone in a bad neighborhood, the five-foot-nothing 100-pound woman being stalked by a six-foot 200-pound deranged ex-boyfriend.

The bad people (the criminals, terrorists, and violence-inclined mental defectives) whom the proponents of this legislation say will be disarmed by it most likely will not be affected in the least. If they want access to a firearm, they will have it, by hook or by crook.

You see, the bad guys have found this massive loophole in the existing restrictions on private civilians’ rights to own and carry weapons called “breaking the law.”

There are already 20,000 to 25,000 existing restrictions upon the pre-existing individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons, which are supposed to be guaranteed against State infringement by the Second Amendment and Article 2, Section 6 of the State Constitution. None of these anti-liberty statutes has stopped a bad guy from obtaining a firearm when they want it.

Laws already exist that prohibit felons, domestic abusers, foreign terrorists, incurable drug abusers and alcoholics, and mental defectives from obtaining, owning or carrying firearms.

Laws already exist that prohibit the use of firearms (and other objects) to harm other people (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).

I think it’s safe to say that all these laws have done is keep honest people honest, the same way locks on doors do.

Those who propose further infringements upon individual liberty aren’t truly looking to improve the human condition at all, but seeking more power over others for whatever reasons. No good will come from these infringements — no good has ever come from these sorts of laws, and no good ever will.

Specifically —

House Bill 8[3], so-called “universal background check” legislation sponsored by Representative Debra Sarinana, would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals. Gun owners will be forced to pay undetermined fees and obtain government approval before selling firearms to family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, or fellow hunters, competitive shooters and gun club members. This proposal will have no impact on crime and is unenforceable without gun registration. [4]

House Bill 40[5], by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows — a perennial target of the gun control crowd, even though studies show that these events are not a source of crime guns.[6]

House Bill 83[7], extreme risk protection order or “red flag” legislation sponsored by Representative Damon Ely, would authorize the seizure of firearms and ammunition from individuals without due process. Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge, alleging that someone is a danger to themselves or others in an ex parte proceeding — prior to any formal court hearing at which the respondent can be represented by counsel and present counter evidence — would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person’s home and confiscate their private property.[8]

House Bill 87[9] by Representative Deborah Armstrong expands the state’s “prohibited person” firearm law by purportedly incorporating federal firearm disqualifications. The bill would prohibit individuals convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanor crimes or who are subject to a domestic violence protective order from purchasing or possessing a firearm, with violations being a criminal offense. However, the bill goes beyond the prohibited categories in federal law in several significant ways. The state law definition of “household member” — unlike federal law — specifically includes a person who is or has been a continuing personal relationship, which applies to dating or intimate partners who have never lived together. The bill would include, as firearm-prohibiting offenses, nonviolent misdemeanors with no physical contact between the parties (like harassment by telephone or email, or criminal damage to the property or jointly owned property of a “household member”). Unlike federal law, this bill would require anyone subject to a protective order to surrender any firearms they own, possess, or control to law enforcement within 48 hours of the order. Not only does this bill impose a mandatory surrender, it authorizes law enforcement to seize any guns that are in plain sight or are discovered pursuant to a lawful search. Similar legislation had passed the Legislature in 2017 but was vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez. Significantly, the 2017 legislation contained other options for affected parties to comply with the firearm surrender requirement, including storing their guns with licensed firearm dealers, or transferring the guns to a qualified third party. These key alternatives are not contained in this bill.[10]

House Bill 130[11], sponsored by Representative Linda Trujillo, would make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. New Mexico already has a first degree felony child abuse statute on the books to hold adults accountable for putting children’s lives or health at risk in any manner. The tools exist to charge and prosecute parents or guardians in appropriate cases. Education is the key to protecting gun owners and their kids, not a state mandate on how one stores a firearm in his or her home.[12]

If you truly want to stop violent crime and terrorism, find out what motivates criminals and terrorists to hurt others, and address those concerns.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee — The committee in which this legislation is sitting at present.
  2. I presently reside in House District 16, of which Antonio “Moe” Maestas is the present State Representative.
  3. HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES, sponsored by Debra M. Sariñana and Patricia Roybal Caballero
  4. NMSSA commentary about HB 8
  5. HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS, sponsored by Miguel P. Garcia
  6. NMSSA commentary about HB 40
  7. HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT, sponsored by Daymon Ely and Joy Garratt
  8. NMSSA commentary about HB 83
  9. HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION, sponsored by Deborah A. Armstrong
  10. NMSSA commentary about HB 87
  11. HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES, sponsored by Linda M. Trujillo
  12. NMSSA commentary about HB 130

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,005, 27 January 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    3. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    4. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    7. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    8. Vote the Air Facebook page
    9. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    10. A Bias Toward Liberty Facebook group
    11. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    12. Gun Owners of New Mexico Facebook group
    13. Independent Insights Facebook group
    14. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    15. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    16. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    17. Pink Pistols – Albuquerque Facebook group
    18. Sons and Daughters of Liberty New Mexico Facebook group

Advertisements

Saturday, 19 January 2019

Tucker Carlson on the Ruling Classholes

Filed under: Media, Politics, Principles, Viewing — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:48 PM (20:48)

Tucker by and large hits the nail on the head, and proceeds to drive it all the way in on the first smack of the hammer.

The self-appointed Ruling Classholes — the Bushes, the Romneys, the Clintons, Bill the Original Weldist — don’t care in the slightest about you, your family, or your friends beyond the extant that you care about a beer bottle.

When the beer bottle is empty, you toss it in the trash.

That’s the same way that the Classwipes view anyone who isn’t in their worldwide super-clique — as expendable and disposable, to be tossed aside at a whim.

Just put aside their hypocritical appeals to your altruistic side, your “better nature,” that they spout when they expect you to fall for their anti-liberty schemes

NO, they’re not going to take care of you when the proverbial fecal matter strikes the fan. Either they’ll spend the time holed up in a resort somewhere, waiting it out, or they’ll be too busy looking out for themselves and their own.


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,005, 27 January 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com

Monday, 7 January 2019

Quote of the Day for Monday, 7 January 2019

Filed under: History, Politics, Quote of the Day — Tags: — mikewb1971 @ 9:11 PM (21:11)

“The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”
Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, Book III, 27


Who Doesn’t Want to Pay Twice as Much for Car Insurance?!

Filed under: Economics, Politics — mikewb1971 @ 6:20 PM (18:20)

Here’s a gem from this year’s list of pre-filed bills for New Mexico’s 60-day kabuki show State Legislature

HB 112 DOUBLE VEHICLE INSURANCE MINIMUM COVERAGE

Basically, Representative David M. Gallegos (R-61, Lea County) seems to be of the opinion that auto insurance policies simply don’t offer sufficient coverage. If the insurance companies won’t increase their minimum coverage on their own, then they simply must be made to do via the Iron Fist of the State. For example, the first part of HB 112 —

SECTION 1. Section 66-5-208 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1978, Chapter 35, Section 282, as amended) is amended to read:

“66-5-208. EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY – AMOUNTS AND CONDITIONS. – “Evidence of financial responsibility”, as used in the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, means evidence of the ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of the evidence, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a vehicle of a type subject to registration under the laws of New Mexico, in the following amounts:

  1. [twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)] fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident;
  2. subject to this limit for one person, [fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)] one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident;
  3. [ten thousand dollars ($10,000)] twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident; and
  4. if evidence is in the form of a surety bond or a cash deposit, the total amount shall be [sixty thousand dollars ($60,000)] one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000).”

Now I’m sure that the insurance companies will simply increase the minimum coverage limits to comply with HB 112 without raising premiums for the covered, right?

Of course they won’t — they will probably seek to double the premiums that they charge to the covered as soon as possible after HB 112 is added to NMSA 66-5-208.

It’s what businesses do when the regulatory state requires that they “put out” more — they pass on the cost increase(s) to their customers in the form of increased prices.

“The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”
Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, Book III, 27

Of course, there’s what could be the flip side of this little bit of cronyist mercantilism.

This could be a put-up job by the insurance companies themselves. Simply put, they could be figuring that since most of the population needs motor vehicles to get around in New Mexico (try using Uber or Lyft outside the urban areas!), they have that population over a financial barrel.

Basically, we need their services to get by, so they can charge what they want and otherwise play games with We the Drivers.

How much did the insurance companies lobby against the “individual mandate” part of Obama’s copy-and-paste job from Massachusetts Romneycare?

[YES, I’m saying that “Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act” should be repealed in its entirety, as it disincentivizes the insurance companies from competing via pricing. I was T-boned by an uninsured driver in April, 2003 — my car was totalled, the other vehicle barely damaged, and all that the responding APD officer did was had the trainee who was riding shotgun with him remove the license plate from the other vehicle. “Tough cookies, Mr. Blessing.”]

Either way, we expect New Mexico Democrats to be advocates for and devotees to the ever-expansive State, enthusiastic about Big Government sticking its fingers, nose and other appendages into our wallets, homes, businesses, among other places.

We expect New Mexico Democrats to cheer on the further infringements of our lives, liberties, properties, and pursuits of happiness in the names of Collectivism and Lefty-Fascism.

We expect New Mexico Democrats to use such anti-Liberty schemes to feather their own nests and the nests of their families and friends, their beneficiaries and sponsors.

But Mr. Gallegos is a Republican.

Don’t Republicans campaign as wanting to get government out of our lives, businesses and properties?

Aren’t Republicans the ones who tell us, “Put us in public office if you want Constitutional government, free-market economics, and individual rights” ?

Don’t Republicans tell us that they’re the ones to root out the corruption in and around the public sector?

So WHY exactly is this particular Republican furthering the State’s intrusiveness into the private sector, and possibly expanding the corruption of New Mexico?

Representative David M. Gallegos – (R-61, Lea County)

District: 61
County: Lea
Service: Representative since 2013
Occupation: Sr. Superintendent
Address: PO Box 998
Eunice, NM 88231
Capitol Phone: 986-4454
Capitol Room: 203IN
Office Phone: (575) 394-0099
Home Phone:
Email: david.rsi@hotmail.com


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. HB 112 — HTML version, PDF version

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1003 – 13 January 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Gab / Google Plus / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    5. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

A Partial List of Pre-Filed Legislation [2019]

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 1:17 AM (01:17)

List of pre-filed legislative bills

Two things about this list page —

  1. To populate the list page, you have to click the blue “GO” button on the left after the page is done loading.
  2. What follows below this paragraph is a PARTIAL list, just to give you an idea of what it’s like. To see the full, current list, go to the actual official page.

HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES

HB 35 FIREARMS LICENSEE STOLEN GUN CHECKS

HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS

HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT

HB 85 UNION SECURITY AGREEMENTS

HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION

HB 101 NO FINGERPRINTS TO RENEW CONCEALED CARRY

HB 105 ENHANCED PENALTY FOR FIREARM USED IN CRIME

HB 112 DOUBLE VEHICLE INSURANCE MINIMUM COVERAGE

HB 129 SCHOOL SECURITY PERSONNEL & DEADLY WEAPONS

HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES

SB 8 FIREARM SALE BACKGROUND CHECK

SB 59 PROHIBIT CERTAIN LEGAL DEFENSES

SB 79 ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR DISPENSER’S LICENSES

SB 148 FORMER OFFICERS AS SCHOOL SAFETY PERSONNEL

SB 159 PROHIBIT CERTAIN LEGAL DEFENSES


Sunday, 25 November 2018

Paul Krugman, Instructor on Masterclass

Filed under: Economics, Humor, Politics — Tags: , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:52 PM (15:52)

Scrolling through my “News Feed” on Cuckerbergbook, I recently came across this little gem —

<sarc>
Yes, YOU TOO can add to your economics edumication for the low, one-time price of 180!
</sarc>

But seriously, folks, why not simply cut to the chase on this?

<sarc>If we’re going to live the Krugman way, why not go all-out?

Let’s have our friends in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy (and their foreign counterparts around the world) light off all of their special toys? You know, the ones that give us results like this —

That way, we can all cash in and get rich!</sarc>


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Economic Policy Journal [EPJ] by Robert Wenzel — Paul Krugman Economics on Gilligan’s Island

    Free Advice by Robert P. Murphy — Gilligan Is Disabused of the Treasury View

NOTES

  1. Published at / in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 999 – 2 December 2018
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK

Mr. Ford on What Americans Really Want

Filed under: entertainment, Humor, Politics, Viewing — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 1:34 PM (13:34)

Mr. Ford from Frisky Dingo simplifies American politics for us —


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Frisky Dingo Wikipedia page

NOTES

  1. Published at / in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 999 – 2 December 2018
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. Egg McMuffin for President Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    7. Vote the Air Facebook page
    8. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    9. A Bias Towards Liberty Facebook group
    10. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    11. , Independent Insights Facebook group
    12. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    13. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    14. Southwest Freedom Lovers Facebook group

Thursday, 15 November 2018

Chuck Baldwin on “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Laws

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 4:00 AM (04:00)

Chuck Baldwin
Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 11:31 PM ⋅

America has had its first killing in an attempt to confiscate an innocent man’s firearms under newly-enacted “red flag” laws.

Police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, showed up to confiscate 60-year-old Gary Willis’ guns. A family member had called police and asked them to suspend Gary’s gun rights, and the local police department was more than happy to oblige.

When the pounding on the door began at 5:17 am, Gary showed up to his door holding a firearm. When he saw it was police, he put the gun down to talk to them. But then the officers informed him they were there to confiscate all of his weapons.

Imagine how you would feel. You wake up out of a sound sleep to pounding on your door. You grab a gun in case it is a criminal, but it turns out that the police are there to confiscate your guns without even accusing you of committing a crime.

Gary refused to comply with the confiscation order. That is when a fight broke out. During the struggle, police opened fire on Gary Willis, killing the 60-year-old man in his own home.

Gary was not charged or even accused of committing a crime. Police judged him guilty until proven innocent — which is exactly what EVERY “red flag” law does.

All of this happened because one extended family member told police she was worried that he was dangerous. No evidence, no proof . . . just one person’s word. And now, an innocent man is dead.

This is America’s future if establishment Republicans get their way. They are working with Democrats on a nationwide “red flag” bill to authorize these kinds of gun confiscations across the country.

And we already know that Donald Trump is solidly behind these “red flag” laws. His quote:

“Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Soon after Trump spoke those words, Republicans in Florida (they controlled the House, Senate and Governor’s office) passed their own Hitlerian “red flag” law, (as have numerous other states). Since then hundreds of innocent Floridians have had their guns seized by police.

Now, we have our first American citizen killed by police during an attempt to enforce a “red flag” law. (I predicted this would happen as soon as I heard about these “red flag” laws.) He won’t be the last.

If people value their right to keep and bear arms, they better start banding together in large numbers to make sure these “red flag” laws do not become law in their states — or even in our entire country by an act of the federal congress.

And if you are depending on Republicans to protect your 2nd Amendment liberties, you are totally in the dark about what is going on (neither can we depend on the NRA for help). Donald Trump and a host of Republicans in DC are plotting RIGHT NOW to enact federal “red flag” laws. And Republicans (along with Democrats) are enacting “red flag” laws in State legislatures all over the country.

WAKE UP, FOLKS, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE — OR ONE DAY POLICE WILL BE BANGING ON YOUR DOOR TO CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. The Truth About Guns [TTAG] — Maryland Man Shot and Killed by Police While Serving a Gun Violence Restraining Order by Daniel Zimmerman
  2. The Baltimore SunAnne Arundel police say officers fatally shot armed man while serving protective order to remove guns by Colin Campbell
  3. Capital GazetteAnne Arundel police chief: Shooting was evidence that month-old ‘red flag’ law is needed by Phil Davis

NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. KCUF Media Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    5. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    6. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    7. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    8. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Thursday, 1 November 2018

Arvin Vohra and Tiffany Diaz De Leon on Education

Filed under: Education, Politics — Tags: , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:09 PM (21:09)

Arvin Vohra
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:42am

Education doesn’t have to be welfare. It doesn’t have to be paid for by taxes, or administered by government.

As an educator, I consider education to be the second most important part of life. The most important part is food. What if we treated education like food?

Some people would choose to provide education at home, just as today many people prepare meals at home. Some might use prepackaged curricula, like the Ron Paul Curriculum – just as today some people like prepared meals.

Others might find deep interest and passion in education, just as some people love exploring new recipes at home. Others might choose to use private schools, just as today people go to private restaurants. Some might have in-home tutors, just as today some people hire caterers.

Most people would probably use a mix – just as today, most people sometimes cook at home, sometimes microwave prepared meals, and sometimes eat at restaurants.

Separating education from the welfare state will give more choices, better quality, and lower taxes. If elected, I will do everything I can to end all government funded, subsidized, or managed education.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra
Candidate for U.S. Senate

Let’s go a bit further here —

Tiffany Diaz De Leon
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:30pm

Great Post.

In Washington State, our Dollar Stores are pretty high speed — fresh produce, dairy, lunch meat, aisles and aisles of crackers, noodles, condiments, soda.

Could a poor person survive on dollar store food only? Yes.

May not like it all of the time, but if you are poor what choice do you have?

Moving up the food/grocery ladder . . .

* Big Lots — discount store, some grocery
* Walmart
* Sam’s Club
* Costco
* Cash and Carry
* Standard grocery stores such as Safeway, Albertsons
* Wholefoods and PCC
* Small yuppie, posh grocery stores in smaller yuppie posh neighborhoods such as Harbor Greens with custom meat, expensive dressings, and overpriced olive bars.

Then onto higher-priced foods such as crab legs, lobster bisques, prime rib

– Sprinkle in, as above, (range of) restaurants and/or home delivered meals.

But instead of being food. Above could be education. Yes, Dollar Store – education. Yes, olive bar – education. Yes, home delivery — education.

Maybe parents can only afford dollar store food — to send their child to ‘Wholefoods’ – level education.

Answer is always the same = Subsidize Nothing.

Answer is always the same = Free Markets.

Food, education, dry-cleaning, medical care, socks, birth control, no matter = free market.

At least with education, the Internet (modem dinging sound effect) has leveled the playing field tremendously 🙂

#UberizeEducation
#AlacarteEducation
#DollarStoreEducation
#NotMyKid

So instead of Uberizing education, you would prefer to keep your kids in the government-owned and -operated indoctrination and daycare centers public schools

  • Where your kids can sample all of the latest drugs, both recreational and officially-sanctioned?
  • Where your kids can get alcohol?
  • Where your kids can have sex with their peers (or teachers, or the janitor, or the “school resource officer”)?
  • Where your kids can go through metal detectors and / or get wand-raped before entering the building?
  • Where your kids can get their officially-issued ID card with embedded RFID chip (biometrics coming soon!)?
  • Where your kids can know that they’re safe because someone affixed a sign saying “NO WEAPONS ALLOWED” sign to a post on the property boundary?
  • Where your kids can be taught that a mile is a shorter distance than a kilometer?
  • Where your kids can be tasered, pepper-sprayed and handcuffed for the offense of “being out of line” ?

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Thanks, APS, For These Results

NOTES

  1. Reposted —
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs — Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Google Plus / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. KCUF Media Facebook page
    3. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    4. A Bias Towards Liberty Facebook group
    5. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    6. , Independent Insights Facebook group
    7. Lets Talk Politics Facebook group
    8. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    9. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Friday, 21 September 2018

I, “Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Nationalist Liberal”

Filed under: Politics, Quizzes / Surveys — mikewb1971 @ 3:11 AM (03:11)

You are a: Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Nationalist Liberal

Collectivism score: -100%
Authoritarianism score: -83%
Internationalism score: -83%
Tribalism score: 17%
Liberalism score: 33%

Explanation key:

Collectivism refers economic intervention, whether the society or state should intervene in the economy to redistribute wealth from the more to the less successful. The negative percentages indicate opposition to such intervention.

Authoritarianism refers to state power to control the actions of individuals to prevent them from harming others or themselves, and also to establish the will of the majority over society. Negative percentages indicate opposition to state power.

Internationalism refers to political involvement in other nations or global affairs, either via war, treaty or international organizations. Negative percentages indicate isolationist beliefs, and the belief in national sovereignty.

Tribalism refers to identity or nationalism, favoring your own nation over foreigners. Negative percentages indicate opposition to national or ethnic identity and oriented towards pan-humanism.

Liberalism refers to acceptance of historically illegal or immoral social practices or customs. Negative percentages indicate opposition to such acceptance.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. PatheosThe Orant: Quiz: The 5 Dimensional Political Compass by Billy Kangas

NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: