MarkMcCoy.com    

You can quote me on that.

God makes men. Men make governments. Freedom is righteous. Righteousness makes men warriors. Government makes men soldiers. Soldiers are slaves.

I choose to take my chances and flourish, or perish, under the dictates of my conscience and abdicate nothing to any man.

I earn a living by my industry and labor through private contracts and receiving compensation by way of valuable consideration as exchanged in the marketplace in an occupation of common right.

I pay all taxes I am lawfully required to pay.

Every war should be fought with spoons, and only by the political leaders of those warring nations. Let them invest themselves in wrenching the life from their enemy while the people live their lives peaceably and prosperously. Good riddance!

I take little offense at anything, notwithstanding vulgar insults or physical assault. Even the vulgar insults are easily dismissed once one understands the sources of such guttural flatulence. I am always open to constructive criticism and debate.

I am paid in whatever manner agreed upon between myself and those with whom I contract. I don't understand what "under the table" means or implies. IF it is meant to imply that I don't inform "government" of everything that I choose to make my property through private contracts and the fruits of my labor then yes, I do not inform ANYONE or ANYTHING of what property I possess. Is there a reason why I should; why am obligated to; or of whose business MY labor and property are of any subject or interest? To disclose one's property to would-be robbers can be said to be insane. To disclose one's property to government is called patriotic.

I am not employed. "Employment", "employee", "employer"... are statutory words that do not define my private labor in the marketplace. I have a number of talents that produce streams of compensation for me that I do VERY well with. I could be "considered" employed by the casual outside observer, but that determination is made from ignorance and presumption and not upon fact or context.

I know of no debt to society since I place no burden upon society, have received no demand for payment by society for any perceived burden placed thereupon, ask nothing of society which benefits myself individually, know of no person or entity that has identified itself to me as "society" or has evidenced any burden placed upon it by me.

I don't care what government does for others, I ask such government to do nothing for me. I am not obligated to anyone but myself and those with whom I've made myself morally obligated and duty bound. I take advantage of nothing, although the majority's public and willing display of ignorance and greed provide ample fertile ground for an opportunistic individual to exploit. If one cares to make a claim against my person or labor then let them bring whatever armed brigands they may see fit to summon for their aid and exploitation and take what they think is their entitlement. Otherwise, save the collectivist blather for them and their ilk. I say many have not the courage to face anyone on their own, but rely upon the violence and despotism of willing government actors to serve as their evil proxy.

If one admits to a government by the "consent of the governed", and the incapable, collectivist ilk want to form such a government and consent to IT being the source of their reason, conscience, morality, sustenance, knowledge, health....etc., then the incapable, collectivist ilk can form, and consent to, such a government. The incapable, collectivist ilk CANNOT morally conscript others like myself to participate in, or consent to such a government.

I don't believe that societal inequities can be remedied by government, but should be allowed to work themselves out in the arena of public and private compassion, discussion, and responsibility. the question is not whether government should correct these problems, but we should not allow government to prohibit, regulate, or interfere with whatever societal solutions we may choose to exercise. Government has made these issues their domain and therefore controls the suffering and limits the compassionate.

There are plenty of sources of revenue if government chose to exploit them. However, most of these sources are big corporations, big campaign contributors, and ensconced oligarchs. For the less fortunate who do not have the means to, or access for, private education or healthy living, the privileged corporations that operate at our expense as protected entities have a moral duty, if such a concept can be applied to a legal fiction, to give back to society for the exercise of their privilege and benefit. They do NOT have free speech, are NOT "persons", and do NOT have any constitutional protections. They, nevertheless, are the new aristocracy and source of political power.

Government is a tool for the intolerant, narrow-minded, insecure, ignorant, and domineering. Where it was originally intended to provide for the protection of individual life, liberty, and property, it now caters to corporations, special interests, associations, and all which grease the palms of malfeasing, self-ordained oligarchs.

That is the state of our ignorant society. The American version of blonde-hair, blue-eyed, Aryan sheep.

When you strip away the precious preconceptions, icons, idols, edifices, and contrivances people tenaciously cling to with nary a modicum of self-investment, research, intellectual discernment or critical-thought; pushing them outside their comfort zone, you can readily observe how much people act upon what they're told as opposed to what they know.

Yes, I do love myself. I am my best friend. I am obsessed with me! I am smart, confident, knowledgeable, honest, blessed, tolerant, compassionate, fair, reasonable, conscionable, just....but most of all, unafraid.

I have to live with me so why not love me? I spend every waking and sleeping moment with me. Why would I want to lie to myself by acting contrarily to what I know to be the truth? Why would I want to be afraid of anything, and have to look myself in the mirror and address a coward? Why should I succumb to ignorance, threats, violence, or tyranny? Since I trust in a higher authority; one that has given me all the wonderful gifts that I enjoy with no hesitation; those gifts which are mine and mine alone; and knowing that some day when I leave this earth and mortal shell, no matter how much I might otherwise scream and cling to this temporary life; I'll return to that authority and with pride say that I did not abandon my faith or abuse my gifts and talents which I owe to that authority; and say that in the face of all the ignorance, intolerance, violence and evil I had faced that I did not feed that darkness by giving it my fear and doubting the justice of the Creator.

I love myself, and some identify and are attracted to good, decent people, and that gives me hope and joy, inspiring me to be charitable and giving with sharing my gifts with others who may likewise be doubtful or searching as I once was. I love myself because I was given the choice by my Creator to love, or hate, myself. The power of happiness lies within me, not dependent on outside influences. I make me happy or sad. Nobody can affect me in a way I choose not to be affected. Everything I do because I want to. If I do something moral it is not that I do it for morality, it is that I do it morally. I have to wade through ignorance and intolerance daily. I even learn from the ignorant. I learn that some find it comfortable, anesthetizing, blissful, and simple. However, it is a lot of work. When faced with truth all around, how taxing it must be to keep turning away, shutting an eye, covering the ears, subduing the reason….. Some work harder at not knowing than knowing and facing the truth.

What I have come to know is because I challenged much of what I was "told" and when they fell silent I knew that I was either right, or they didn't know more than me. I'm not a genius, or don't consider myself a genius. What I know, no matter how flawed or mistaken it may be, is what I have learned on my own and have come to understand honestly and through my own education. It is my truth. It may not be everyone's truth. But until I'm shown otherwise, it is the standard by which I peaceably live my life. I also make sure that I err on the side of caution and, if acting out of ignorance, only expose myself to injury instead of others. Unfortunately, I know of many would rather I act, or rather advocate not acting, on my own volition.

I don't believe when I hear that a "law" has been passed. An Act has been passed by the legislature, but I would stop short of calling it a "law". Just because a number of people vote "yea" on something does not make it binding upon anyone who wished not to be bound by it. Can a majority of people pass "laws" that deprive anyone of their rights? How can a law that deprives one of their rights be a just law? How can a law be anything but just? If all rights are equal, and a law is passed that deprives a right for the sake of another, the deprivation of that one right nullifies the entire law. If the "law" is merely the will of the legislature then what recourse have we against such a body that devolves into despotism? Are we then denied relief because no claim of violation can stand when rebutted with our accepting despotism as law?

What the legislature may pass as so-called "law" deprives me of nothing. It may frighten me into not exercising my rights, but I am in full possession of all my rights at all times. They are as much a part of me as my thoughts, my bones, and my spirit. They cannot be taken away, only surrendered through inaction or fear.

The "law" does not prevent me from exercising my rights. Only I determine when and where I will exercise my rights. If I allow myself to believe that a law has power over me then it is through that erroneous belief that I choose not to exercise my right out of ignorance or fear. Nobody has deprived me of my right but me. The existence of a "law" has no bearing upon my actions. Only a charge arising out of a violation of the "law" can move the actors in government to seize my body in effort to restrict my exercise of a right, but my right to resist and defend such action is incumbent upon me to whatever end that may provide. The law does not guarantee me anything. It provides a forum for redress of a violation of my rights or an attempt at restrict my exercise of rights, or a controversy arising from conflicting claims of rights, but it guarantees me nothing. Only I, myself, can guarantee my rights by resorting to civil venues established by the consenting and mutual formation of government, or I can resort to a state of nature when faced with an unresponsive or oppressive government and take measures to protect my rights. Rights are not dependent upon law. The law does not create rights. Man creates law. Therefore, it may be claimed that man creates rights. If man can create rights then man can deprive rights. If man can do these things against the will of another man then that is tyranny. Tyranny and law are exclusive of one another. Where one exists the other does not. Law is the protection of life, liberty, and property, but not the origination or guarantee of them.

Those who whisper disparagingly my name as being a rabble rouser and nonconformist, while baptized in the blood of the innocent whose lives were taken by the collectivist, violent state, and who forego critical thought and autonomy in favor of being left alone by authority, will genuflect before their earthly master and swear to submit to idolatry. I say that not ONE of the naysayers have a modicum of courage or conviction; nary an inkling of principle; no concept of self; but instead are defined, regulated, ruled, and subject to despotism, tyranny, and evil. The only refuge of such people is ignorance, violence, and oppression. Yet, I live my life as I wish, obey no one, harm no one, and speak out audaciously, belligerently, vociferously, and confidently that cowardice and intimidation cannot prevail against courage and honest convictions. I prevail.

I believe that some, if not most, people either want or need an external authoritative source for maintaining order. If they so choose to submit to being governed by such authority, and also abdicate what responsibility they have for safeguarding their rights under such a system and in return consent to the oligarchy that will manifest by industrious and enterprising few who are adept at exploiting and capitalizing on the ignorance, greed, and prurient base motivators of the masses then that essentially constitutes consent.

However, for an industrious, enterprising, reasonable, moral, and responsible few who have no need for such a system; as it, by its very nature operates as a barrier and suppressor to the progress of mankind by those few, by appeasing and placating the wants of the many at the expense of the few, then the few should be allowed to live their lives unimpeded and unregulated, notwithstanding tortious and criminal acts which result in harm or deprivation of other's like-rights, and are thereby be free to enjoy to the fullest extent their liberty

I believe that those few will exhibit and set a standard that others may aspire to, while others will simply tire at the thought of such exercise of industry and opt for servitude. Why should the independent, industrious people be conscripted to the stifling yoke of collectivism when they choose to carry a burden of their choosing and not of their assignment? I believe that I am one of those few who do not need, or want, the limits prescribed by man when I can excel if left to my own devices.

If I choose to engage the systems which are designed to equalize certain activities where a privilege or benefit is being derived, then I will submit to such regulation. In my thoughts, words, and actions I am sovereign, and myself, ultimately responsible.

I, living as one of those individuals who acts according to my will, have no need to justify through logic or law what I do. My actions are based on MY rules and guidelines. If my actions appear to conform to the mandates, laws, rules, and regulations promulgated by government, then that correlation does not find its origin with government, it just so happens to be in harmony with two sets of standards, mine being the origin and authority for the genesis of my actions. I do not act on prescribed morality, I act upon MY morality. Because government may have a set of rules that comport with my morality is not that government dictates my moral actions.

I do not submit to the judgment of the masses. I cannot be bound by the judgment of others when their morality may not be in harmony with my morality. If it is the way of the world that all of us are subject to arbitrary rule by a majority then I reserve my right to resist at all costs being forced to succumb to arbitrary rule.

If the people exercise their prerogative to not purchase from a market that does not cater to their needs then that market will suffer. Government intervention in the market does nothing besides foster protectionism, monopolies, costly regulation, and disincentives to true entrepreneurs. Government is the one benefitting economically, but more so thorough retaining power, by manipulating prices, labor, and competition. Our choices are limited by government, because only those who have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with government regulation may have access to the government's "human resources".

Let me ask you, what if I did not elect that government? What if government's concept of "good" does not comport with my concept of "good". Government may legislate for the good of ITS people, that being, those who consent, engage, promote, and desire such government. But those who do not cannot be morally bound to obey or submit to such government. The question is, WHO determines what is good for who? Again, the argument boils down to being forced to submit to collectivism under the threat of force. I do not ask government to do anything for my good, or to undertake my responsibilities.

Tell me, if my actions are not based on MY rules and guidelines, can you tell me whose rules and guidelines I pattern my actions after when I peacefully interact with other human beings?

I fail to find in nature, in morality, in the law, where ordinary men who take an oath to no one and who's only power and authority exists at the behest of men also exercising arbitrary power, where police have been blessed with the ability or power to determine who in-fact is good or bad, and then be morally and lawfully entrusted with the authority to treat them in a manner consistent with their adjudication.

Some men, who serve in the capacity of policemen, are good men; but it is always the person, and not the office, that does us harm. Police is just a mask, a persona. It is the people acting in that role that harm us and no amount of pomp or rhetoric can cast evil men in a noble light because they happen to wear a costume and carry a badge.