The state will kill you over a parking ticket

In fact, they will kill you for disobeying them over anything. Fundamentally any state regulation, statute, law, or whatever is a death threat against everyone else in society. State officials themselves of course are free to disobey laws, even legitimate laws like those against murder and theft, and get away with it. Just look at what happens to cops that kill unarmed people if you have any doubt of that.

Imagine you get a parking ticket. Now lets say you ignore the ticket for a while. What happens? Well, eventually you will get a letter requiring you to appear someplace called a “court” so that a man or woman in a black robe can issue threats and extort money from you. Or a man or woman in a black robe will issue what they call a “warrant” for you. That means that a bunch of men in blue or tan suits can look for you and will try to capture you and probably steal your car if they see you on the street.

If you do not appear in this “court” eventually they will send men in blue or tan suits to your house in an attempt to kidnap you. If you try to defend yourself from this kidnapping attempt, they will escalate their use of force to the point of shooting you dead if you do not submit. If you doubt this, I challenge you to put it to an empirical test. Get a parking ticket and then follow the above steps and see if the state does not in fact subdue you with extreme force or kill you.

So, we can see that any time the state issues orders or regulations they are essentially threatening to kill those that do not obey. All laws carry the death penalty for breaking them. Keep this in mind any time you want to lobby for legislation or get the state to sponsor some social cause or whatever else you want it to do. First ask yourself why you want the state to do this thing instead of doing it yourself with your own resources, or resources that you can collect from the voluntary participation of others. Then next ask yourself if you are personally willing to kill those that do not wish to contribute or participate with your program. If you are not willing to kill those that do not participate, then you should not be lobbying the government.

21 thoughts on “The state will kill you over a parking ticket

  1. Pingback: NJ Residents Face $1,000 Tickets If Pets Not Locked In Harness « TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg

  2. billy

    I was broke, didn’t pay a parking ticket and now the state has imposed fines totaling 6000 dollars. I am not allowed to drive so it is impossible to get a good job. So I have been stuck for the last seven years trying to figure out how to pay this. You would think the state would want me to pay them. In my current state it is nearly impossible to save the money.

    This is a victimless crime. No property was damaged and no one was hurt. The inanity of my situation is mind blowing.

  3. Pingback: NJ Residents Face $1,000 Tickets If Pets Not Locked In Harness

  4. Greg

    You have stripped away all the lies and sugarcoating and got right to the heart of what the state is; a lying, stealing, murdering entity.
    Anybody who supports the state supports evil. It doesn’t matter what the state does with the loot as it was stolen to begin with and so nothing makes up for that fact.
    Good job stating the truth. All the personal attacks are due to the fact you have made those people uncomfortable supporting theft and murder.
    Keep spreading the word.

    1. Doug Barbieri

      Well said Greg! People get very uncomfortable whenever I point out what the state actually is–a group of people who make rules who use deadly force to make you follow the rules. It’s something that I think everyone knows deep down but are afraid to admit to themselves. This is why you get such a strong emotional reaction (at least, I think that is why).

  5. Pingback: The emotional, ethical cop | The Emptiness

  6. White Pride Worldwide

    I think it’s hilarious how you regurgitate the same old libertarian talking points…

    Socialism is so bad. But, wow, thank god my sister could pay $1200 to get my car back for me. You can’t take care of yourself and your family had to step in and take care of you. But Socialism is bad. She clearly was empty in helping you, because you shouldn’t help people, because that it is empty.

    It’s pretty easy to rail against social programs and unemployment when you have family willing to pay for everything for you. Or when you’re born with mommy and daddy’s money. You’re a pathetic hypocrite.

    The best part, she helps you, basically calls you a joke in the process, and you seem totally unaffected by it. Everyone knows you’re a joke, you’re used to it.

  7. KevinC

    So does the title of your blog refer to the state of your head? Also, sounds like you have an incredibly nice (and unappreciated) sister.

    1. Mike P (the emptiness pro) Post author

      Sure, maybe she was nice in helping me get the car back. But the incident proves the point of my post.

      1. Richard Allan

        If someone helps you because they’re being “nice” they generally don’t throw it back in your face afterwards.

        1. Mike P (the emptiness pro) Post author

          True. In fact that comment was an attempt by my sister to discount my argument and control what I was saying because it upset her. Very dishonest. She also failed to mention that this incident happened about 10 years ago and she has long since been paid back. So all the statists can feel free to tell me how irresponsible I was 10 years ago. That’s a great way to disregard an argument that you can’t refute.

  8. Pingback: The emptiness of fearing computers | The Emptiness

  9. Katie

    If your intention was to prove a point by not paying the parking tickets, then I wish you had clued me in before I spent all that time and money.

    1. Mike P (the emptiness pro) Post author

      My intention is to prove a point by making this blog post. I had no intention in not paying the parking ticket. I was broke. I was not trying to exhibit the violence of the state by not paying, I just didn’t have any money. The incident is a good example of exactly the point I am trying to make with the post though.

      It’s hypocritical to claim the purpose of the state is to help the poor, and then get mad at me for not being able to pay extortion money to the state because I was broke.

      When you guys used to warn me not to ignore tickets because I was going to get myself into trouble, you guys were right. This post is an acknowledgment that you were right and that your advice to pay up right away when the state extorts money was totally right. I was an idiot back then when I thought that because it was unreasonable for a group of people to steal your car and extort $1200 from you for a parking ticket, that they would not actually do it.

      If you disagree with what I’ve posted and you see a flaw in my reasoning then please by all means point it out and I will correct my argument.

      If you are offended by my arguments, then by all means do what you said you would do and just don’t read the blog anymore.

  10. Katie

    In my experience what happens when you don’t pay parking tickets for several years is that the state tows your car and then your sister runs around for several hours locating a bank where she can take $1200 out of her account to pay your parking fees, then looks up the location of the impound lot, goes to said impound lot, gets the registration from the car, takes the registration back to the Marshall’s office to pay the fee, then takes the certificate from the Marshall’s office back to the impound lot, gets the car out, and then drives you home. It’s easy to complain about the state, but if they were going to kill anyone it would have been me. So, good job on shielding yourself from the violence of the state. I am glad you are willing to stand by your principles, even when it means completely disrupting the lives of those you are supposed to be in relationships with.

    1. Mike P (the emptiness pro) Post author

      The state stole the car, and extorted $1200 in order to get it back. That’s an act of aggression on their part. This experience only makes my case stronger. They are the ones who initiated violence against both you and me.

      That said, I totally get why you are annoyed at me for this incident, and you are right. I did not immediately submit to the violence of the state, and therefore the consequences were worse, and like all Mafia gangs the state spread the violence to my family. If I had submitted earlier this wouldn’t have happened. I have long since learned my lesson on this one, submit to the violence of the state or face severe and potentially fatal consequences.

      I think you should also take away a lesson though, and recognize that in this situation the violence was initiated by the state, not me, and they are the ones who were morally in the wrong, not me.

      Thanks for the comment. It further illustrates exactly the point I was trying to make.

    2. Rudd-O

      This was an incredibly rude thing to say. You should be ashamed, doubly so because what the article says is TRUE… And all you can manage in order to avoid having to deal with the article’s content is being personally abusive? Shame on you.

  11. ames

    Interesting that everyone relies on the state to put into practice donation programs, because “I’d never give donations on my own, so I’m really glad they’re taken automatically by taxes. If taxes didn’t cover it, nobody would ever give to the poor.” When viewed in the light you’ve outlined above, the state is basically issuing a death threat in order to collect for your favorite benevolent causes. Do you really believe that your fellow man should be killed if they’re not willing to give to your favorite donation, just because you are too lazy to give to that donation on your own time?

    1. gdw

      I love how the same people who argue this are the same one’s that say we have the control over the government by voting. If we truly do have the control, then the “charity” the state does is a direct reflection of what we would do with our own money, IF we actually do have say over he state.

      Which is a direct contradiction of what they just argued with regards to the need for taxes, because we actually do NOT want to do that ourselves.

      If no one would be willing to donate on their own, AND we have the control of the state via democracy, then we would not be paying taxes for charity.

      So, which is it? Do we have a say or don’t we? Are we charitable or not?

      If we do have a say, then what the government spends our money on is a direct reflection of what we would spend it on. If you argue that we would NOT spend it on the same, then you are saying that we do NOT have a say in what the government does with our money.


Leave a Reply