individual sovereignty

“I fly the Confederate Flag for my ancestors”

The battle flag currently referred to as the Confederate Flag is flown because the KKK popularized it and used it as a lustful pining for the olden days where Blacks were in their proper place, and they wrapped it up is revisionist historical bullshit.

They successfully managed to trick people who had no real opportunity to know better (considering the time and geography) that people hate the Confederate Flag because they hate Southerners.  Which isn’t true.  They hate the Confederacy.  Saying otherwise is like saying people hate the Nazi flag because they hate Germans.

Do you want to fly a flag about Southern pride?  I can understand that.

Want to fly a flag of Southern Pride that isn’t tied to slavery, racism, and solely popular because of the KKK?  Want to fly a specifically southern flag that is built on equality, justice, standing for what’s right, and against the oppression of a foreign capitol that’s oppressing the people it governs and crippling them through taxation?

Fly the Jones County flag.  Fly the flag connected to Southern rebellion against the Confederacy, against the slave-owning elites that forced the Southern States into a war that obliterated a generation and ended in cataclysmic defeat and the burning of cities and years of military rule.

Fly the flag of people that fought for individual sovereignty, that celebrated racial minorities as equals, that was a hundred years ahead of most of the country in recognizing and protecting interracial marriage.

Fly the flag of a country that those ancestors who were drafted and forced to fight and die for thought they were fighting for.  For the ideals that the Confederacy pretended to care about only to rile up their people to fight a war that the Confederacy started.

Fly a flag that honors your family and your ancestors.  Not one that used them and threw them away to protect slavery and oppression for the benefit of the landed elite.

Who says anarchy, says negation of government;
Who says negation of government, says affirmation of the people;
Who says affirmation of the people, says individual liberty;
Who says individual liberty, says sovereignty of each;
Who says sovereignty of each, says equality;
Who says equality, says solidarity or fraternity;
Who says fraternity, says social order;
By contrast:
Who says government, says negation of the people;
Who says negation of the people, says affirmation of political authority;
Who says affirmation of political authority, says individual dependency;
Who says individual dependency, says class supremacy;
Who says class supremacy, says inequality;
Who says inequality, says antagonism;
Who says antagonism, says civil war;
From which it follows that who says government, says civil war.
—  Anselme Bellegarrigue

If you think Brexit is a good idea, consider your reasons. Is it because the EU is mostly controlled by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who live far away, and don’t necessarily know about the needs of the man on the Clapham omnibus? If so, consider how many people in your own government, British or otherwise, consist of unelected bureaucrats. How many people are placed in their offices, undemocratically, and granted the authority to decide how you are allowed to live your life?

If it’s more than a handful, shouldn’t you be able to exit too?

Dear Statists

You can have fucking Jesus as the president of your communist utopia and it wont matter.
Besides all the other countless fallacies your immoral socialist arguments garner, there is one break in logic that calls for greater scrutiny - that of BIG governments’ natural attraction to Tyrants - the idea that even if you do vote in all the Proletariat loving Lenin’s of the world and mange for a few years of socialist grace (honeymoon period), it only takes one Stalin, one Hitler, one Bush, one Mao to fuck shit up and destroy that which took generations to build in a matter of months.
It’s inevitable, centralizing so much power in one institution of society promotes exploitation. Politics is a horrible roof to house the “public good” in.

Why leave your individual sovereignty at the mercy of politics? Quit being such a fucking tool and wake up to the fact that NOBODY IS SMARTER THAN YOU AT RUNNING YOUR GODDAMN LIFE.
Only you can determine what’s in your best interest and that of your community.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Quit taking it up the ass pussies! Take your life back and run with it!

“What is the species of domestic industry his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, in his local situation, judges much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him.”

— Adam Smith

“People who are making decisions for themselves don’t always come up with the right answer. They don’t necessarily make tradeoffs between health and other values in an informed or carefully considered manner. Sometimes they regret their decisions. But they know their own tastes and preferences, and they have access to myriad pieces of local information about the relevant costs and benefits that no government regulator can possibly know. They will not always make good decisions, but on balance they will make better decisions, as measured by their own subsequent evaluations, than any third party deciding for them. Leaving aside the question of who is better positioned to decided whether a given pleasure is worth the risk associated with it, there is an inherent value to freedom: When it comes to how people feel about their lives, they may well prefer to make their own bad choices rather than have better ones imposed on them.

Jacob Sullum - An Epidemic of Meddling | Reason Magazine, May 2007

I have friends who believe that capitalism is evil. Not just non-optimal, but with the mustache-twirling and the cackling and the rubbing of hands. They tend to think that capitalist economies encourage racism and sexism and homophobia. More importantly, said economies are rooted in an ideology that devalues the inherent worth of persons, and therefore must be stopped.

Coincidentally, they are almost all of the opinion that implementing socialist policies will lead to a higher standard of living, and are happy to cite economic arguments in their favor.

I also have friends who think that socialism, or anything even approaching socialism, is an affront to personal liberty. They are strongly ideologically opposed to government intervention in any context that interferes with individual sovereignty, which to them is almost all of them.

Coincidentally, they are almost all of the opinion that implementing libertarian policies will lead to a higher standard of living, and are happy to cite economic arguments in their favor. 

This is objectively nuts, right? 

Obviously, there are purely ideological libertarians and purely ideological socialists and purely ideological who knows what else who don’t actually care about the economic impact of their social ideals. And, fine, at least they’re consistent. They’re also rare. The majority of people with strong political beliefs just happen to have matching economic and social ideologies. 

Whether or not your economic policy of choice will decrease human suffering is an empirical question. It is, in fact, a purely empirical question. It is not related to your feelings on human rights or non-economic oppressions or anything else. It is entirely possible that the underlying ideology of capitalism glorifies horrendous inequalities and also capitalist economies lead to a higher average quality of life. It is possible that the ideology behind socialism and communism is horrifyingly dismissive of individual freedoms and also socialist policies lead to a higher average quality of life. Inconvenient if true, but there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be. 

Which is not to say that nobody is making empirical arguments, far from it. But if all the evidence you cite, all the economic arguments that seem convincing, just happen to match up with your social ideology, that’s probably a red flag you’re not really listening to the other side. 


“If a group of such individuals attempted to manage a country, the general arbitrariness of their governance would render the endeavor hopeless. In the past, when people were involved in a showdown with nature, they didn’t live with the idea of individual sovereignty in the forefront.

As the structure of society moved further away from nature, people gained more ability to influence that structure. Since then too many people have brandished their own self-consciousness.

Because of this, people have tired of other people and become obsessed with preserving their own lifestyle. They have forgotten that they originally lived together with nature. This intentional existence is what caused the destruction of the planet.”

-Zeon Deikun speech

from Zeta Gundam novelization; by Yoshiyuki Tomino

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
—  John Stuart Mill

“In an extremely harsh environment,before worrying about individual sovereignty, all financial andmaterial resources must be devoted to environmental protection. It is only with a surplus that attention can be diverted to the security of the individual.

Preserving an environment capable of sustaining life is the primary concern. The idea of accommodating individual sovereignty originated in an era before scientific civilization had advanced.

Nature provided a new environment for those people who were not interested in environmental pollution if it wasn’t right before their eyes and who eventually exhausted the Earth. This is why humans were once again forced to feel humble before nature, much like animals.

This is the meaning of space exploration.”

-Zeon Deikun speech

from Zeta Gundam novelization; by Yoshiyuki Tomino