Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Which would you be?

Warlords and Protectors.

That is what many guys naturally tend toward.  They are just opposite sides of the same coin, I think.

Every statist seems to worry that everyone inclined in this way will become a Warlord if the State collapses, but wouldn't more people choose to become Protectors when freed of the silly notion that "that's government's responsibility"?

If that's the kind of person I was, I would certainly get more satisfaction out of coming to the rescue than I would subjugating others to my will.

Or, is this another area where I'm just oblivious to how different I am from "the average"?



  1. Kent, your site is taking a long time to load lately, and when I click on the comment button that too takes a longer time than it used to. My computer tells that's because it's "Waiting for billstclair.com..." Though you would want to know.

  2. I added that little "script" months ago...
    Try it now.

  3. "Or, is this another area where I'm just oblivious to how different I am from "the average"?"

    The averages have it pounded in their empty skulls from damn near day one that they are supposed to be "leaders". Their very definition of "leadership" is subjugating others to their will. Which drives folks to be cops, managers, bureaucrats... CONgressmen....

    You are very different from average, and that's a damn good thing in my book.

  4. A "war lord" is just a politician with a bad press agent.