Subject: Pots & Kettles
From: Veronica
Date: 23/4/13 1:44 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

I had a discussion today, about my latest views.

The Non-Aggression Principle (which is the fundamental platform of Anarchists, Volutaryists & Libertarians … and ME, now), is:

1. It is IMMORAL to INITIATE force against ANYONE … EVER. Because to do so means that you are attempting to subjugate THEIR Free Will underneath YOUR Free Will.

2. IF - on the other hand - someone initiates force against YOU, then you have the absolute moral Right to take what ever action you need, in order to prevent being subjugated to THEIR Free Will. (This nothing more or less than Your Right to Self Defence, and includes the use of DEADLY FORCE if you need it).

Now, in day-to-day terms, we all have the Right to 'agree to disagree'. For example, you may not agree with the Non-Aggression Principle … and that's OK … I agree with it, but I'm NOT saying that you MUST.

You ALWAYS have the Free Will to take your own view, and make up your own mind.

If, on the other hand, you agree with me, that the Non-Aggression Principle (which, btw, is just another way of stating The Common Law i.e. Common Sense i.e. Morality i.e. Reason i.e. Rationality i.e. Logic i.e. Honour), then you will agree that we all have the Right to 'agree to disagree' WITHOUT COMING TO BLOWS?

If that's the case, then YOU TELL ME which King, Queen, Tyrant, Dictator or GOVERNMENT … which 'Ruler' of any kind, shape, form … could operate under the Non-Aggression Principle?

Which is the same thing as saying, which King, Queen, Tyrant, Dictator or GOVERNMENT … which 'Ruler' of any kind, shape, form … could POSSIBLY operate by saying "Well, this is what we decided … but … if you disagree … then that's fine … no problem … we won’t bother you … we'll just 'agree to disagree', like grown adults should"?

No Government could possibly work like that, could it? They ALWAYS HAVE to resort to FORCE. Threats. Intimidation. Coercion. Extortion. You, know all those things that are UTTERLY IMMORAL.


When you turn up to Vote, you're saying "I want things to go my way … I WANT MY WILL IMPOSED ON ALL THOSE WHO MAY DISAGREE WITH ME. In my private life, I'm a reasonable, tolerant, person. But when it comes to Voting … I want things my way … and … although, normally, I wouldn't impose my will on someone else, when the Government does it … and I don't have to see it … I'll turn a blind eye to it. I'll PRETEND that's not what's actually happening … because it's called 'democracy' … and that means 'freedom'".

Thus, the hypocrisy of "Government" … and the hypocrisy of even turning up at the Polling Station … is GOBSMACKING!

To call 'democracy' freedom has got to be the ultimate hypocrisy!!! It's the 'freedom' FOR YOU TO IMPOSE YOUR WILL ON YOUR NEIGHBOUR!!!

Something you would NEVER do in your Social Life!

I was (initially) taken to task over the issue of Slavery. On the basis that "It was Right, and Moral, to abolish/outlaw Slavery". And I'm very glad that was brought up.

My argument was this … it is Right (in my view):

1. To abhor the concept of Slavery;

2. It is Right to speak out against it;

3. It is Right to satirise it, lampoon it, and ridicule the employment of Slavery & Slave Owners as much as you like;

3. It is Right attempt to PERSUADE those engaged in Slavery that they were WRONG to do so;

4. It is Right to support those who were Slaves IN ANY NON-AGGRESSIVE way … including helping them in their own Self Defence.

BUT … it is Wrong (in my view):

1. To IMPOSE the abolition of Slavery;

2. To attempt to censor or censure the Slaver Owner's point of view.

Why was it wrong? Very simply because - HOWEVER MORAL YOU THINK YOU ARE - you actually might be wrong - and - if you think YOU can impose YOUR WILL on SOMEONE ELSE - then don't be surpised if that comes back to bit you on the bum ... because you won't have a leg to stand on, if (at some time in the future) they impose THEIR WILL on YOU. (Pots & Kettles … pots & kettles!)

You are, of course, completely free to disagree with me.