Dear Jim Carrey,
When killers from the Federal government come around demanding money, men, and resources to continue to kill more foreigners in U.S. wars abroad, I want everybody to be able to successfully resist, and I want them to have the right to be armed against the Federal government. The reason I want this is because I care about the lives of those children abroad. Rather than strengthening the monstrous institution responsible for these deaths (by giving the government the power to disarm people), I want to see it weakened, so that the deaths can stop.
Unlike you, I won't go so far as to say that anyone who disagrees with me is a "heartless motherfucker" who doesn't care about children and has penis-esteem issues, but I would like you to understand that I want people armed because I care about kids.
Jim, I don't think I support the right to gun ownership because I'm a heartless motherfucker, or because I have concerns about my penis, or because I get a thrill from hunting and killing animals. In fact, Jim, I don't even own a gun. I support the right to gun ownership because I believe people should have the right to resist tyranny, and because tyranny is, even now, killing people at your and my expense. You make a lot more money than me, and I believe you should have the right to keep every dollar of it instead of having large pieces of it siphoned off to go into the war machine, usually at the request of the "Hee Haw" style people you are mocking today.
The number of children killed inside America's territory every year by privately owned guns pales in comparison to the number of children killed outside of America's territory every year by government owned guns. Please join me in opposing the real killers: your government. I don't know if you are "willing to bend" on the subject or not, but I hope you will at least think about it.
Dear Jim Carrey,
I, frankly, don't care what the capital of Israel is. It's not my problem.
The capital of Israel wouldn't affect me at all, if it weren't for people's custom of forcing their personal opinions on others. Think of it: everybody could have their own opinion of what the capital is (or no opinion at all), and as long as they didn't engage in the use of force against others who disagreed with them, we could all simply coexist.
Now, I understand why people with religious convictions in the Middle East feel they must use force to defend their opinions about the capital and ownership of the territory there. Here you get into a genuine property rights issue.
But neither Mitt Romney nor I have such religious convictions, nor do we have any property right claim to any territory in the Middle East. It's none of my business, and none of his.
And it's perfectly fine for him to have a personal opinion about who is right in the conflict. The problem is that Mitt Romney seeks to forcibly represent me. Meaning his personal opinion becomes an "official" opinion. And those who do not agree with his personal opinion may look for ways to initiate force against the people Romney claims to represent, since they will take his opinion as being representative and official. And in a sense it will be: Romney will commit to the use of force at some level to defend his opinions about the Middle East. This is what we call "policy."
And Romney will use the resources of those he represents. The problem, of course, is that Romney doesn't really represent people. He's just the man seeking the next turn at being tyrant and parasite. To genuinely represent people you have to be actually selected by the people who want you to act as their agent. Not just proclaim yourself victor because their neighbors want you to represent them, and then start violating property rights and other rights left and right.
Nobody deserves a turn to do what Romney and Obama seek a turn to do in November.
Update: be sure to read Lysander Spooner's explanation of why voting does not create a relationship where the winner represents the governed.
"Politics has no place in health care," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York City, in a written statement today, as he gave two hundred fifty million stolen dollars to Planned Parenthood.
Do you think he does not realize that he is a politician? That he personally is now responsible for a measurable ($250,000,000) political involvement in health care? Do we all need to write him a letter, get those closest to him to whisper in his ear and let him know what a ridiculous and embarrassing thing he said in his statement?
Is there a fund we can contribute to for the mayor's mental health care?