Two Cents

    Two Cents – Everything-Voluntary.com

  • On Gender Expression II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    I hold no issue with or bigotry toward anyone expressing themselves however they see fit. I think it’s important that each of us find a way to be comfortable in our own skin. You do you, and I’ll do me. Human expression is beautifully diverse. I also think it’s important that each of us are honest with ourselves and others about what we are. Unfortunately, what I see when I look at the gender expression debate is equal parts tragedy and absurdity. The tragedies are that anyone suffers gender dysphoria and that the language used in the debate tends toward confusion and/or equivocation. The absurdities are the expectation that anyone can or should remember and give verbal usage of 70+ genders, and their accompanying pronouns, and that because people can’t make peace with who they are on a biological level, they demand that others share in their delusions. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Gender Expression

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    One ideological battle “raging” today is centered around the idea of gender. Some say human gender is binary, male and female. Others say human gender is non-binary, that there are many genders among human beings. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the following: human gender is binary, male and female; but gender expression is varied and fluid. I don’t see why describing human gender this way should be so controversial. Those who say its binary are correct, and those who say its non-binary are also correct. You express your male or female gender your way, or change it, and I’ll do likewise. Neither needs to force the other to accept anything. Keep the force of law out of it, please. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Pushing Boundaries

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Boundaries are useful toward the goal of protecting what’s considered valuable. What people, places, things, ideas, and customs a person values is likely the result of both their nature as human beings and their nurture as being raised in a particular socio-cultural and economic environment. Often the boundaries we encounter as we explore our world are not set as we would like them, and so we push against them. Sometimes we push soft, sometimes quite hard. Either the boundary holds, or it gives way, sooner or later. I think that those boundaries which hold fast over time are those which are the best at meeting our various needs as unique human beings. Pushing boundaries seems to me like a necessary and worthwhile endeavor in any society, large or small. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Independence

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Why do we call acts of political secession independence? When we speak of these things, we do so from the perspective of “the people” in contrast to the state. From whence lies the dependence of which we are now independent? The people are not dependent on the state, but rather, the state is dependent on the people. Without the people’s resources and tolerance, the state would not exist. Independence Day, no matter the locale in which it is celebrated, is a misnomer by those celebrating it, for the independence now exists on the other side vis a vis the people celebrating (eg. Great Britain lost their dependence, became independent, from the American colonies). The people were never dependent on the state, so the dependence that was removed by political secession was the state’s, not the people’s. May more and more states be liberated from their dependence on the people, is my wish. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Politicians

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    What the 2016 US election, Donald Trump sexual assault and Hillary Clinton email scandals should convince everybody of is the fact that politicians are just as flawed as every other human being on planet Earth. That these hubristic rulemongers have any real aptitude or wisdom to govern other people is beyond laughable. The idea is deplorable. Nobody, not anybody, can or should do that job. Simply put, the job shouldn’t even exist. And that’s today’s two cents.

  • On Jurisdiction

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    State lawmakers and law enforcement officers claim jurisdiction over their citizenry, meaning, they claim that the laws the make and enforce are applicable to those they claim are their citizens. What facts and evidence of those facts do they have to prove their claim? Dig deep enough, throwing out non-responsive answers to that question (non-factual, irrelevant, without evidence), the honest seeker of truth soon discovers they only basis for their jurisdiction: their guns. And that’s precisely the goal of such questioning, to reveal to the world the foundation of their power and the applicability of their laws. It’s not birthright or constitutions or majority rule or any of that other nonsense. It’s firepower. Bullets to the brain. And with that revelation the voluntaryist position on the state becomes clear: the state, the government, is nothing more in fact than a criminal syndicate enjoying and profiting off of a widespread, coercively perpetuated but mistaken perception of legitimacy. Given enough time and resources, any crime lord or street tough could obtain for itself the same perception. Does that mean we owe them our allegiance, our duty, our obedience, our praise, our honor? I think not. And that’s today’s two cents.

    Skyler.

  • On Illegal Immigration

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    Due to the lack of factual evidence on the applicability of state laws to people, there is no such thing as illegal immigration. It simply doesn’t exist. By definition, immigration by people can only be illegal if there is factual evidence that the state immigration laws they are allegedly violating apply. In reality, there is no such factual evidence. So in reality, illegal immigration is a fantasy. Doesn’t exist as anything more than people’s opinions and arguments. QED. Do you think it does? Present your factual evidence and let it be challenged. Good luck. And that’s today’s two cents.

    Skyler.

  • On Offensiveness

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    That we might say the exact same words and phrases to two different people and receive a different reaction proves that offense is taken, not given. One of the teachings of Stoicism is that each of us are responsible for our reactions to the events that surround us. How we interpret the behavior or speech of others is up to us, not them. Even violent behavior is subjectively interpreted one way or another. If what I say or what I do offends you, that is your problem, not mine. To take offense believing it’s given is to allow others control over you that they really don’t have. It is to enslave yourself to them. I tell my children daily that when they get upset over their siblings words or behavior, they are allowing their sibling to control them. I want them to understand their reaction for what it really is, a subjective interpretation. I think one day they’ll get it. I think one day I’ll get it. And that’s today’s two cents.

    Skyler.

  • On Rights II

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    It has become fashionable among the philosophical circles I run in to proclaim something along the lines of “Rights don’t exist!” The reasoning usually focuses on the fact that no person or group can point to a right that they claim they have. Even the so-called right to life or right to self-defense are nonexistent, they proudly say. Can’t be logically justified, or so it goes. Whether or not they are wrong on that count is a matter for debate, but where they falter is on their actions. Every person thus claiming that rights don’t exist no doubt recognizes where and when they should or should not ask for permission before interacting with someone or their property. Even if it’s solely on the basis of desiring to keep away from harm, their recognition of the limits to their behavior as it concerns other people and their stuff is a recognition of some underlying rights-based structure. Because that’s what rights, logical conceived, are: limits on behavior. If you want to claim that rights don’t exist, fine. But if you behave otherwise, you’re contradicting yourself. And that’s today’s two cents.

    Skyler.

  • On the 2nd Amendment

    Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

    From all the studying I’ve done on the issue, it seems to me that the spirit and purpose behind the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was to preserve weapons parity between “the people” and “the government” in order to prevent tyranny. It doesn’t matter that the weapons back then were less powerful or sophisticated than the weapons we have today. If “the government” has a certain kind of weapon, “the people” must have it also. 2nd Amendment aside, its both a fact of history and a matter of common sense that one party with greater power will run roughshod over the weaker one. We see this every day, from the playground bully to the abusive parent to the petty bureaucrat to the totalitarian dictator. Weapons parity is the only antidote to the disparity in respect for the autonomy and property of others. And that’s today’s two cents.

More from “Two Cents”