“Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree besides the river of truth, and tell the whole world – ‘No, you move.'”
— Captain America
I once voted for John McCain. I didn’t get it. I even thought he was the lesser of two evils. In 2008 you would have heard me say Ron Paul didn’t have a chance. I liked what the doctor had to say, but I fell for the trap. I was lied to. I’m glad I didn’t get it. My ignorance regarding politics would shield me while I was in college. Which turned out to be a huge blessing.
When the 2012 election rolled around, I realized how much I liked what Dr. Paul had to say. I especially liked that he was the outcast because I was the outcast. I even wore number 13 during my high school baseball years as a personal protest because I was the outsider on the team. I wore it as a badge of honor. During the debates Dr. Paul spoke a truth I had never heard, and it connected every dot along my path. I finally understood why I could not be nailed down on a political test, but I didn’t know how to call it by its rightful name. “Libertarian” at the time was not an option, nor was it spoken about during my college years. Neither was anarchist, unless used to incorrectly imply chaos. You could either be a republican, democrat, or moderate.
Bottom line you had to support some level of force by government.
This didn’t stomach well.
Insert Dr. Paul speaking about the non-aggression principle. It was perfect. It was an idea worth planting yourself down for, and telling the whole world to move. The only problem (not a real problem) is that once you accept the N.A.P then you’re on a path to anarchy, and there is no turn around. You can’t step back and decide that force against a non-aggressive person is suddenly justified. It’s truth is unwavering. Force, as anything other than an act of defense of an individual’s life, liberty, or property, is never justified. Removing government from the equation doesn’t change this principle. Mutually agreeing to have a government doesn’t change its truth. You either think it’s okay to use force against someone that isn’t aggressing upon you, or you don’t? Which is it?