Conversations With a Clover….

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In honor of July 4 – the lingering spirit of it, if not the actuality – I decided to publish a “letter to Clover” as a way to show how anti-freedom people think. Maybe “think” is not the exactly right term to use to describe the mental processes of a Clover. It’s more a combination of primitive emoting and intellectual incapacity – in particular, an incapacity to think in terms of concepts and principles. The Clover sees something he doesn’t like, and reflexively emotes: “There ought to be a law!” He does not grasp the broader implications of “the law” he wants to see enacted – or he just doesn’t care, because he believes it will further some greater good – as he defines it. Dissecting the Cloverite Mentality is interesting in terms of understanding just what pro-freedom people are up against.

The “letter” that follows was written in response to this missive I received from a Clover in response to my column criticizing random roadblocks:

“yes Eric you discussed the evil police stopping to talk to you. The evil police that stop and check you for weapons before you board public transportaion. If they did not then hundreds would be killed. No Eric you do not give me examples you just call it an evil government. Give us some examples of innocent people getting beat up by police? I am sure you will come up with the handfull on the internet that have been replayed thousands of times. Fine if you disagree with a tax that helps others or helps everyone. Is that an evil thing or a decided decision made by people that are elected and represent us.”

Here’s my answer to Clover:

Clover … “talking to the police” is not the issue. Being forced to talk to the police when you haven’t done anything is.

In a free country, a person who hasn’t done anything – who is just “out and about” – has the right to decline to speak with a cop; to decline a search absent specific suspicion of wrongdoing based on some objective probable cause ; to decline to “show his papers” to a cop unless the person has actually done something to warrant being ID’d. To be able to go about his business without interference. To be able to tell a cop no – and for the law to support the person saying no, not the cop.

America is no longer a free country – thanks to people like you.

I believe human rights are inalienable – meaning, not negotiable or subject to “terms” decided by some arbitrary authority. You believe the opposite. You believe various “greater goods” (as you define them) are more important than any individual’s right to (among other things) be free to travel in peace without random stops/interrogations/searches “just to be safe.”

But it is much more than a difference of opinion about the nature of human rights.

My position amounts to a bullwark against the state; the Fourth and Fifth amendments were written as lines in the sand beyond which the government and its enforcers may not tread without key conditions – such as probable cause or a warrant issued by a judge based on specific evidence of wrongdoing – having been fulfilled first.

Yours is an open-ended invitation to limitless control of individuals by the state. Because once you admit the principle that the state may control people not because of anything they have actually done but on the basis of some generic “someone might do” you have ceded to the state limitless power, since anyone might conceivably do anything – and therefore, any measure is justified to prevent such “anyone” and “anythings.” This is how we got to the state we’re in, where dying 95 year old cancer patients in wheelchairs attempting to board a commercial flight are forced by pot-bellied 90 IQ government thugs to remove their adult diapers in the name of “looking for terrorists.” Where any failure to immediately cringe before a thug cop can result in your being Tazered – or much worse. Where the people are no longer secure in their persons and effects. Where unreasonable searches are the new normal…

Your small-minded self only focuses on some particular outcome that you happen to favor – such as “getting drunks off the road.” You’re not smart enough to understand that precedent always becomes principle. That once you make a single exception or qualification to a basic human right on the basis of some arbitrary/random criteria divorced from a specific cause specific to that individual, you have fatally undermined that right and set the stage for its demise.

If you had any knowledge of history, if you understood human nature, you’d see the pattern and understand that all of this has happened before and is destined to happen again for exactly the same reasons it has happened in the past.

It is tedious – and pointless – to continue trying to explain these things to people like you.

You won’t get it, ever – not even as they’re leading you off to a camp. And you certainly won’t object when others are led off to camps – they must have done something to deserve it.

It’s all to keep us safe, you’ll say. The government is our representative. It has our best interests at heart.

Submit. Obey.

This is the essence of Cloverism – the mentality (and the type of person) responsible for the degradation of the American Republic. To restore that Republic, Cloverism in all its forms will have to be dealt with.

The question I’d like to ask this 4th of July is: How do we deal with Clovers? Is Cloverism a flaw in the human genome? Is it true that – for the most part – human beings don’t want freedom? That – for the most part – they either want to be led or desire to lead?

Your comments and thoughts will be appreciated… .



  1. It’s nothing genetic. The cloveritic mindset is a result of the world we live in, the society we were brought up in. Human nature at any given time matches the environment in which people live, and we live in a world in which force pervades such that we swim in it as obliviously as fish swim in water. These people grew up in this statist world, and it’s all they know. Plus they were conditioned tirelessly to this end in the government schools. Clovers are the government’s best friend. They are its supporting base. And we will never see the end of cloverism until the State is abolished.

  2. I must confess.. My whole family are clovers. For the life of me I’ve tried to convince them of their own powers and freedoms, but they refuse to acknowledge that they’re just bowing to the system.

    They say things like: “I just stay within the law and I’m fine”. I tell them that Parliament will continue to make more and more statutes (maritime law) until they can’t do anything without sacred permission. It won’t be long before Australia’s Labor gubberment exhumes Stalin. How long will it be before WE end up on international TV, crying at gunpoint for the death of our “Dear Leader” (if you remember the utter crap from China regarding Kim Jong-Il)?

    What really infuriates me the most, is that these very people, unknowingly (or ignorantly) still endowed with the very freedoms that countless thousands died to achieve over hundreds of years of struggle and persecution, carry on their merry way, thinking everything will be just fine in this great country of ours.

    Damn! In Australia, contrary to the US, the Constitution isn’t taught in schools, in fact it’s almost unheard of and buried. It’s these very people that don’t know – primarily through ignorance, that our Imperial Acts Application Act, Section 8, subsection 12 states: “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void”.

    That’s right – all on-the-spot speeding, parking and other traffic fines are illegal and we have the Constitutional Right to ignore them. Only the system tries desperately to get away with it through bullying, corruption and ignorance – and the masses (clovers) happily comply, if not encourage or force others to do likewise.

    It’s almost impossible to show these people that exceeding some arbitrary number on a pole isn’t dangerous, providing you understand the physical limit of the many variables you encounter while under the influence of kinetic energy (there’s another thing they can outlaw – shhhh!).

    Over the last 30 years on motorcycles, I have never been involved in an accident, regardless my speeding record which, if printed on the toilet paper it so richly deserves, would run over the 500 sheet limit. This I attribute to travelling at least 20k (12.5Mi) faster than everyone else. Notably, it’s almost impossible to hit a small, fast moving target and, it’s rare anyone ever creeps upon you from behind, except the Gestapo.

    They’ve tried to side-swipe, head-on, back over and run over me – sometimes on purpose, and that’s NOT even the Gestapo! I’ve found ways to remain alive on 2 wheels and they say they know better.

    “Your Honour, the only reason I’m alive today to be able to face this charge of speeding is because I must in order to survive. If I be forced to travel at speeds where the very idiots your system allowed a licence, my blood will be on your hands.”

    It’s probably not helpful to say this in court, but only AFTER you’re convicted.

    Any Statute Law (Act of Parliament) that attempts to supersede the tenets of Common Law is void, in law. Because Common Law is the law-of-the-land, and supreme.

    Statute Law is merely the law-of-the-sea, inapplicable on land, and subservient to Common Law in all cases. Historically much has been written about this, in particular by Sir Edward Coke, and Lysander Spooner.

    Common Law is based on those “traditions & customs” of our land. First specifically written down in the Magna Carta, 1215.

    It sets the scene for peaceful co-existence. In essence Common Law says that the peace shall not be breached, and that no harm, injury or loss to any other individual is acceptable behaviour.

    And that says it all.

    Under Common Law a Human being has the Natural Right to “travel in a conveyance of their choice”. This Natural, Basic, Inalienable, Right is unrestricted, except for the necessity of peaceful co-existence, above.

    Common Law also says one has the Natural Right to one’s own property, unless a Court of Law (including a Jury of one’s peers) decides against this Right, in a specific instance.

    Consequently, under the law-of-the-land, any Statute that attempts to modify these basic tenets is void. And engenders no dishonour whatsoever if ignored.

    “Registration” transfers superior Ownership to whoever accepts the registration. Thus the property in question has a superior Owner who can – under the law – direct it to be destroyed. Whoever thought they were the Owner, actually becomes merely the Keeper.

    “Licencing” is “asking for permission”. Nothing can be licenced unless it is fundamentally lawful anyway. Consequently if controlling an automobile on the Public Highway is capable of being licenced, then it must be fundamentally lawful. If it is fundamentally lawful, then there is no need to ask permission to do it. “Asking for permission” is the act of a child. Adults, acting in full responsibility for their actions (as per Common Law) do not need to “ask permission”.

    Consequent to all of this the DEMAND of “registration” of automobiles and other vehicles is an unlawful act. “That it is somehow necessary” is a DECEPTION.

    The DEMAND that “licencing” is necessary is a similar unlawful DECEPTION.

    The penalties for these kinds of massive unlawful deceptions, perpetrated over an entire population, and for such a great length of time, must be terms of imprisonment.

    It is hoped that, as the truth of this situation gradually becomes more widely known (as it surely will), the population of Australia will have mercy on the perpetrators.

    I will vote for the mercy to be extended, but with condition. And the condition is that it stops immediately. And the reason for that is because, they can no longer claim they “didn’t know”. Publicly they have now been told.

    This link may help you understand the proceedings necessary in court (US):

  3. ”SENATE DOCUMENT NO.43,73rd CONGRESS,1st SESSION.(March 9-June 16,1933)…The ownership of all property is in the State:individual so-called ownership is only by virtue of Government,i.e. law amounting to mere user:and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” I bet the ”Syncophantus Rediculi”that you so aptly describe as”Clovers”just love the idea of perpetual servitude to a bunch of STATIST maggots who operate completely outside of the law. The only good thing that I can see in this pre-planned destruction of the organic laws of the united States of America will be that those miserable Clovers will die first.

  4. Just now reading this post, Eric. Nice work. I don’t know if the clovers of the world will ever be extirpated though. Humans crave the certainty promised by the state, which is why, despite the mountain of evidence showing how dangerous the state is, people keep on believin’ in the Man.

    • Thanks, Mike!

      Clovers are hopeless.

      There are people who have just been misled, or who haven’t learned to think but who are still capable of thinking. These can be reached – and awakened.

      Not Clovers. They are, to begin with, just not very bright. A quick perusal of Clover’s posts demonstrates this clearly. It’s not merely that he has a different view. It’s that he can’t present a rational, internally consistent argument (i.e., one based on a principle) in defense of his “view” – which more accurately described amounts to his feelings about some subject. A reasonably bright person, when presented with a principled argument, will usually acknowledge the principle and the conversation will continue with that as the premise. But Clover can’t comprehend concepts – and principles are abstractions he’s unable to get his wee head around. For Clover, everything is an isolated particular – to be dealt with on the basis of how he feels about it. And he can’ even express his feelings in coherent English. Here, for example, is his latest:

      “According to others here you are wrong. They say the young are brainwashed and do not improve until many years out of school. I say the Ron Paul has the backers that do not investigate what he is all about. All they hear is what he wants them to hear. That is kind of what the democrats are all about. Since the huge majority of people make less than a million bucks then if you say you are going to tax the other guy to make things better for you then you get votes if it is right or not.”

      It is impossible to even parse this. Just gibberish.

      Worse, though, than his lack of cranial firepower is his demented lust to impose his feelings on others. Not himself, of course. Clover is a pussy – a physical coward who would never attempt to impose his will on others himself. He hides between the legs of Big Brother and gets Big Brother to do his wet work for him.

      The urge to control/dominate others is perhaps the primal affliction that besets humanity. Call it original sin, if you like.

  5. Clover is such a sweetie. While it first denies that Johnnie F. Law will kill you for any little thing, it then goes on to justify its poisoned mindset by pasting over the murder of an innocent man.

    Some nastier souls than me might look forward to watching a video of you being punched repeatedly in the face while on your back, with three brutes atop you, your arms flailing in response to the pain and shock, while the blessed enforcers scream “STOP RESISTING!” I won’t look forward to that, though. First because it doesn’t fit with human compassion, and second because I’ve seen too damned much of it already.

  6. Perhaps this might keep clover busy for a while, that being if clover actually reads…

    Here is why people around the world hate the US government and why there are ‘terrorist’ boogeymen that you’re so afraid of, clover – mainly because you seem to have no working usage of foreign policy history. And although it’s more complicated than this, start here:

    Here’s some of the examples of authoritarian police brutality you asked for:
    However,I doubt very seriously that all of these links and stories will illicit any type of critical thinking with clover.
    2+2 = 5, right clover?

    And eric (et. al.), I don’t know why anyone said (above) the Free State Project was a failure. Certainly it’s moving slower than we anticipated, but since I moved to NH two years ago, I’ve been highly impressed with the amount of new movers who keep coming… and coming. It would be nice if the pledge signers would all get here tomorrow, sure, but the FSP is making definite progress and getting more and more media attention. Please be sure to check out Libertopia film,, Might even want to think about coming to PorcFest next year…. Bob Murphy from Mises was one of our many special guests this year. He even did the zombie interview.

    I can’t even begin to tell you how happy I am to have moved to a state with no state income taxes, no state sales taxes, no seatbelt laws, no helmet laws, no mandatory auto insurance, some of the least gun laws in the nation, fireworks are legal, etc., etc. (And yes, Clover, it’s safer than most places I have EVER lived.) The liberty-minded native NH’ers are bonding quite well with the FSP’ers. As of this session, we now have 14 FSP’ers in the state house and that’s beginning to make an impact. Might want to give it another look before peeps call it a failure. Live Free or Die, baby! You have to be the change you want to see in the world. It ain’t perfect yet, but it sure is a relief to get to talk philosophy on a daily basis with like-minded neighbors than trying to ‘persuade’ a bunch of clovers…..

    • Hi Tippt,


      And – thanks for taking the time to post all this, even though Clover will neither read nor appreciate any of it if he did read it. All his type sees – like a blinkered donkey – is… SAFETY! And, of course, SECURITY! (forms of which include KEEPING US SAFE. Etc.) Clovers are dense and ignorant, a combination that becomes lethal when mixed with moralizing arrogance, that distinctly American sickness.

      On FSP: We are considering it. We live in rural VA, which is ok in some respects (gun laws) but not so good in others (taxes, “safety” rigmarole).

      I may actually already be a land holder in NH. Back in the ’70s my parents bought some very rural property with the idea of building a vacation cabin there. It never happened; they moved West – and the property is de facto mine. I need to look into it !

      • Hi, and thanks eric! I *meant* to type ‘Tippy’, lol.

        I frankly could care less about clover. Just wanted to highlight their complete aversion to history. Anyone who understands US foreign policy history is conscious of why we’re in the pickle we’re in. I realize clover is a brick wall….and seemingly proud and comfortable in their ignorance. Regardless, I still have a hard time understanding why anyone would relish their boot-licking stupidity. Guess Harriet Tubman was right.
        “I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves.”

        Here’s a bone for you, clover:

        And eric, just to give you an example of the ‘free-ish’ market at work here… When I lived in MA, my auto insurance was over $800 a year and I have a squeaky clean driving record. MA state gov’t creates a pseudo-monopoly situation on auto insurance because 1)it’s mandatory, and 2)they only allow certain insurance companies to do business in the Commonwealth. Conversely, in NH, where auto insurance is not required and ALL companies are allowed to compete freely because of lack of gov’t interference, the exact same comprehensive policy with the exact same company was only $254 for the entire year.
        Major difference.


        • NP!

          On insurance: I wish more people would stop to think what making any product mandatory will necessarily do its cost (as well as to the “service” provided). If you can’t say no, there’s little incentive for the manufacturer/provider to keep costs in line, or please its “customers” (a term that’s sickeningly inappropriate when force is involved).

          Car insurance is like any other form of insurance in another way, too: Its value values considerably from person to person. If, for example, you are a very good driver (not just skilled but possess good judgment) the chances of your being involved in a wreck caused by your lack of skill/poor judgment are very, very low. Note I did not use the term, “accident.” This is an important distinction to make. Most wrecks are in fact caused by poor driving – or poor judgment. They are not accidents, because for the most part, they could have been avoided. A real accident is something unavoidable. For example, a deer suddenly darting into the road and startling the driver, resulting in loss of control.

          Most accidents (so-called) are the result of such things as failure to pay attention, excessive speed for conditions (or ability), following too closely, misjudging the closing speed of other traffic as when merging or changing lanes – etc. In other words, driver error. Not deliberate, perhaps. But certainly avoidable.

          My point being, a good driver – someone competent in terms of skill who also has (and uses) good judgment – can avoid most of the situations that led to bent metal and personal injury. He is a very low risk, as far as being the cause of a motor vehicle wreck. And, to a great extent, insurance is only a wise purchase if you are someone who is likely to be the cause of a motor vehicle wreck.

          If you are not such a person, then insurance is money out the window. Money you’d probably have been better off putting into your savings account.

          Yes, it’s possible a deer might dart in front of your car, resulting in loss of control and possibly damage to your vehicle. But how likely is that possibility?

          We all know people who go decades without having a (so-called) accident. Yet they’re forced (in most states) to buy insurance anyway. Over several decades, this can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. Money that could have been put to productive purposes such as long-term investments toward retirement.

          I’ve been arguing for years that insurance – mandatory insurance – is a major contributing factor in the bankrupting of the American middle and working class.

          The typical person has:

          Car insurance
          Home insurance
          Health insurance
          Life insurance

          Combined, the annual cost of the premiums on all this insurance can easily be $5,000-$10,00 a year. Over twenty or thirty years, this adds up to a very large sum – as much as $100,000 or more.

          How many working/middle class people can afford to devote such a large percentage of their income to insurance? For coverages that, to a great extent they could probably risk doing without? And which if they did do without, they’d be in much better shape financially at the end?

          It’s a con. A Bamboozlement.

          And it’s about to get much worse with ObamaCare – yet more mandatory insurance.

          • Eric you need to do your research on insurance because you make many mistatements. For one thing drivers liability insurance is very very low if you go years without an accident. I checked for my car and for liability only and my insurance would be less than $200 per year. For medical insuance with a $5000 or $10,000 deductible you are talking very little. Seomwhere around $50 bucks a month. If someone does not believe in having insurance and only wants the manditory insurance for auto and catastrophic medical insurance it is very cheap, not the $10,000 a year that you are quoting.

            No Clovers

            • Clover, you’re such a fluffly little flower! Let’s accept your premise – that liability only coverage is inexpensive for good drivers. Ok. But what if you have multiple vehicles? All of a sudden $200 a year (your figure; absurdly low – but let’s leave that aside for the moment) doubles. $400 a year. Now, I own multiple vehicles, including four motorcycles. Even though I can’t drive/ride more than one at a time – and even though the bikes don’t get ridden at all during the winter – I nonetheless must maintain coverage on all of them, all the time. The annual bill is much more than $200, chief. Thanks to Clovers like you.

              Now, if I didn’t have to buy coverage for all these vehicles, I would be able to negotiate with insurance companies, who would need to meet my needs instead of my being forced to meet theirs.

              If I were free to do so, I would not buy policies for three of the four bikes. One is a dual sport that is used off-road 95 percent of the time and so there’s almost no chance of my being involved in an accident that causes damage to another vehicle or person. The other is a restored antique that gets ridden less than 500 miles a year, if that – and so again there’s virtually no chance of my being involved in an at-fault accident that results in damage to someone else’s person or property.

              In fact, there’s about as much chance of my needing to be insured on at least half my vehicles as there is for you to be insured when you ski. But as a Clover, you feel duty-bound to force-feed others the insurance you think they need, but scoff at the tables being turned on you.

              Which, again, is why you are a Clover.

          • Eric every auto insurance company that I know of gives a significant discount for insuring multiple vehicles that you own. My motorcylee insurance is far less than the $200 it would be for my car as a primary vehicle. Most insurance companies have large discounts for low use vehicles.

            Yes if you have multiple accidents your rates are going to go up but that throws out the argument that you are such a good driver if you have mutliple accidents. If you have mutlitple accidents your rates should be higher along with if you get DUI arrests.

            Here is something I found about Ron Paul which sounds to be exactly your viewpoint on things:

            “Ron Paul also had the infamous conversation with progressive radio personality Thom Hartmann, where they discussed the FDA, which Ron Paul also wants to eliminate. When asked “what if someone decides to sell poison as candy?” Ron Paul’s answer was “The market will correct itself. After the first few people die, others will realize what is going on and stop buying their product.”
            Thom’s followup question to which Ron Paul had no answer was “what about all the people who die in the meantime?”

            No Clovers

            • Clover, you’re full of shit – as usual.

              Even though I have not had an accident since 1987 (and that one did not involve another car, so no damage caused to anyone else’s property); even though I have never had a DUI; even though I haven’t had a traffic ticket of any kind in more than five years, I’m still paying a helluva lot more for insurance than your ludicrous $200 annually. Part of the reason why – as I’ve already explained – is that I have multiple vehicles and while there is a discount it does not change the fact that each additional vehicle adds to the cost of the policy.

              Insurance for someone like me is a terrible deal. Not only is it extremely unlikely that I will cause an accident (my 25-year accident-free track record speaks for itself) but it is a demonstrable waste of money for me to have to pay to insure vehicles that are not even being used, such as motorcycles during the winter. Or rarely used. Etc.

              Over the past 25 years, I’ve probably spent $20,000 on insurance – money I could have put to productive use and which I could probably have doubled, had I for example invested it in real estate. Then I’d have $40,000 available in assets to draw from in the event I did cause an accident that led to property or other damage. And if not, I’d still have my money – which is as it ought to be, if my actions cause no harm to others. Instead, I had to hand over all that money to buy a “service” I have no use for.

              But as Brent points out, the bottom line is not the money, per se. It’s your control-freak attitude. Your assessment of risk. Your demand that others be forced at gunpoint to do what you think they ought to, even when it’s none of your business and no harm is being done to anyone else.

            • PS: On Thom Hartmann –

              He’s a demagogue who sets up straw man arguments to sway emotional Clover-types such as yourself.

              Point one: The FDA is not a guarantee of “safety” any more than the TSA or DUI checkpoints.
              Point Two: If someone sells poison as candy that would be the business of the police, not the food police.

              Like all Clovers, you’re in love with the government. You believe in its omnipotence and goodness, when the record shows it to be neither omnipotent nor good.

          • Clover, I have three cars, soon to be four. I can only drive one at a time. The laws created by one size fits all conformists like you means I pay way more than $200 a year. Not to mention that insurance is based more zip code than it is anything else. Oh and then there are all the various local laws to prevent such deviant behavior as owning more than one car.

            This brings another thought: one of the reasons SUV owners say they have the thing is for the two or few times a year they need something big. Now just think if multiple vehicle ownership wasn’t so penalized, more people could have a car for driving to and from work and a truck to be used when a truck is needed.

            As far as medical insurance goes I do believe that there will no longer be a catastrophic only coverage because it will not meet federal requirements. Poor people cannot afford to self insure up to five grand so the choice has to be eliminated. A good choice for people who are well… poor, to limit the debt some medical event could cause. A lot easier to work through five grand of debt than $50,000.

            And that’s how control freaks in the USA work on everything, to eliminate choice. To make people conform to someone’s idea of what a good citizen is. Company town robber baron mentality (or the earlier puritan mentality if you prefer) through and through.

          • Clover, I have every discount offered that wouldn’t require me changing age or gender. The little four cylinder I use for routine driving is more than $200 every 6 months alone! Why? zip code. Too many of my neighbors give their irresponsible teenagers cars to drive I suppose. It could be worse… I could live in a cloverite state like MA where it would probably cost thousands.

            As to the FDA (and USDA)… the FDA has actually approved poisons for use on the market. Because ultimately the decisions of the FDA are political. Why is it often illegal to label products as being free of chemicals or GMO? FDA makes it so. If it’s not fraud why is it illegal? Because those who make the GMO and chemical garbage have political power. It took years for milk producers to have that hormone free label, but then were still forced to have a disclaimer that the cow hormones haven’t been proven to cause harm.

            If someone sold poison candy there would be several deaths before the FDA took action. Look at the poisoning of Tylenol in the 80s. FDA didn’t stop it. Private parties did. The market pulled the product and took action to prevent tampering in the future. The producers protected their products because the customers wanted to be assured nothing happened to it between them and the factory.

    • Very good. I rest my case Canoe. I looked at the video “The Killing of Allen Kephart” of which the video was so far away and so poor you could not tell what happened. Then I did a search on the internet for the same story and found 6060 hits. That is pretty much I would say for something that happened in 10 seconds. If someone gets killed by a speeder or a drunk or someone running a red light or other traffic offences I would bet there probably would be zero occurances on the internet unless the local newspaper was online and mentioned it.

      No Clovers

        • I did look up clover drivers and yes there were a few links found but there are of course actual Clover truck drivers that were found. What I meant was that the incident was reported on every libertarian web site there is or ever was. It was a libertarian that created the documentary in the first place. There was not even any facts given in the case. It went on and on that the person was a nice man. I would guess a nice libertarian who execised his right to fight and disobey the police. It did say that he did not stop when the police lit him up after a traffic violation and he kept going until he eventually was stopped.

          No Clovers

        • I did find out who posted the video documentary, it was “Posted: July 11th, 2011 by Militant Libertarian”

          Militant Libertarian is like most radical libertarians, they make up their own facts since the actual ones are not good enough.

          No Clovers

  7. Hey, also. How can I change my icon to a 1985 Porsche 928? I see you’re into muscle cars and like to represent the Germans.

    • There should be an “avatar” button on user profile; you use this to upload images. Or, if that’s not working, we could probably do it for you!

  8. I came to your site from LRC, where Karen Kwiatkowski mentions the term “clover” in her essay “Metaphors for a Post-Federal America”. I enjoyed reading your July 4th musings and also much of the dialog they inspired, but I got anxious before reading all of them and just decided to blurt out my question, sorry if it’s been answered here already but I couldn’t find it.

    Where did you get the term “clover”? From “cleave”? Some other opaque source?


    • Hi PP,


      Clover is our resident self-identified government-lover/apologist; if you follow the threads/posts following the articles (especially under “politics”) you’ll discover many fine examples of his work…

  9. When I was a toddler boy my father would let me drive the car.

    He found in a toy department a little play-steering wheel with a play-dashboard around it and with a suction cup it would attach to surfaces. Dad attached it to the dash on the front passenger side of the car when I was with him.

    I stood up on the seat and grabbed that wheel and had a blast. I was yanking that big old Chrysler through the turns. I made big Vroom-vroom noises. I watched for traffic and deftly made my way through it like a race car driver. Man! I was driving!

    Meanwhile, Dad steered the car where he wanted to go, all the while indulgently chuckling over my enjoying to only SEEM TO BE STEERING THE CAR. Dad always took the Chrysler right where he wanted to go regardless of where I was steering or how much effort I was putting into it. His destination was assured while mine was make believe.

    Some of you will get the point.

    And a tiny percent of you who get it will determine to quietly go about the necessary and dangerous work that has to be done, but which cannot be said aloud.

  10. This should make Clovers squirm in their panties:

    Coming Soon to an Airport Near You –

    by Wendy McElroy, July 6, 2011

    If you fly within the United States in the future, keep your expression neutral, do not blink too much or too little, and do not sweat. Carefully maintain a normal respiration and heart beat as you submit to demands from Homeland Security agents. If you question or resist their demands, you could be detained as a pre-crime suspect, fined up to $11,000 and added to a No Fly list.

    On July 5, a headline in the bioethical news source BioEdge declared, “‘Pre-crime’ terrorist detector field tested in US.” BioEdge explained that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has finished initial testing of Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), which is “designed to spot people who intend to commit a terrorist act.” According to DHS documents, however, FAST targets a far broader range of people, from “individuals planning to cause a disturbance or use false documents to individuals who are planning an assassination or terrorist attack. The future time horizon can range from planning an event years in advance to planning to carry out the act immediately after passing through screening.” …

    • He doesn’t care. It’s all to “keep us safe” and “protect us from the terrorists.” He will accept – welcome – anything – provided it’s couched in the necessary language, because he’s already accepted the basic idea.

      Submit. Obey.

  11. Dear Mr. Peters,

    Great column. A question I would pose to the type of person you desribe is, “Exactly what is it about your neighbors’ freedom that you can’t stand?”

    Regarding freedom itself… my theory is, while people say they value freedoom, they struggle with the idea of personal responsibility, which, of course, is a prerequesite for freedom. An example is the conflicting emotions of someone who says he or she doesn’t like big government, yet accepts various gifts from the government. It’s the ongoing struggle of the ages.

    Gary B.
    Austin, TX

    • Hi Gary.

      I don’t think Clovers know EXACTLY what it is about freedom they can’t stand. Like a trained lab rat they correlate barriers/hoops/limitations/being controled to getting a nice little treat at the end. All the while never knowing/understanding they are in a maze and asking to stay!

  12. Nice piece, but I dislike ‘clover’ as a portmanteau for badge-licking toadies: it’s too pretty (clover makes better butter, for Crom’s sake!).

    They’re serfs, and they fucking love it. And they want the rest of us to be serfs along with them. No question about it (in their minds) – they are as happy as a pig in shit being monitored by their overlords, and they are staggered than anybody could possibly have any qualms about it. To a properly-conditioned serf, any sign of discontent is prima facie evidence of witchcraft (or terrrrrrism).

    It’s a problem that is easily explained by a truncated perspective – a ‘short horizon’ whereby it is thought that such-and-so a set of constraints will not eventually be rendered meaningless by dint of the diligent action of scum like Scalia, Yoo, Bybee, Alito, Gonzales and other charlatans who will parse away everyone’s rights in exchange for a paycheck.

    It is the same mindset as those who think that all that’s required is for the system to be changed such that some mythical set of incorruptible ‘do-only-gooders’ will take the helm… they fail to see the intertemporal (dynamic) issue – how do you prevent the Henry Kissingers and Paul Wolfowitzes (not to mention the Dick Cheneys and Tony Blairs) from setting their sights on, and eventually worming their way towards, that vast vat of taxes and associated power?

    And of course that mindset is aided by utter ignorance of the arc of history – that, always and everywhere, societies are lain waste NOT by external invasion, but rather by internal dissipation of surpluses by career parasites. Brennus could not have uttered his famous ‘Vae Victus’ if the Roman hierarchy had not spent 30 decades splashing other people’s money around like water, dissipating blood and treasure from Britannia to Mesopotamia – losing thousands of men in carnage from Teutoberger Wald to Carrhae… all in a bid to have one’s name remembered in perpetuity.

    And let’s be clear – these serfs are always actually pretty selective in terms of which ‘laws’ they comply with: rolling through a stop sign, tailgating, etc etc etc… there’s ALWAYS some law that any badgelicker thinks is stupid (and with which he refuses to voluntarily comply).

    The trul galling thing is the idea that some bunch of tax parasites know ‘better’ what’s good for us… that gets my goat no end.

    One of the hardest things to get one’s head around, is the notion of intertemporal constrained optimisation – even in its non-stochastic form, the maths involved renders it incomprehensible to 99% of the populace (probably more than 99%, actually).

    What that means is that the overwhelming bulk of our fellow humans are blundering through their own timelines… to permit them to interfere in OUR timelines is outright fucking madness. To listen to one of them braying that some megalomaniacal career tax-parasite ought to have the right to interfere is even worse.

    That’s why it’s insane to proffer any answers – the ‘right’ answer is to remove all artificial constraints on behaviour and permit only those that are efficient in stochastic multiperiod intertemporal games (a note to amateur game theorists out there – don’t even TRY to fucking argue that call based on some shit you read on the internet).

    One of the first axioms of constrained optimisation is that non-binding constraints don’t alter the optimal path. A second (related) is that binding constraints necessarily result in a lower value for the optimisation functional than an unconstrained solution. So any mathematically-savvy economist knows that government action that constrains, leads to lower aggregate social utility – and a WORSE distribution – than would otherwise be the case. It’s fucking axiomatic.

    Now from there where do you go? Well, the Fed impedes (constrains) the market from properly determining the price of money. It’s gotta go.

    Prohibition, the FDA and so forth, inhibit (constrain) the consumption choice set. They’ve gotta go.

    Victimless crimes (e.g., driving home pissed out of your head without hitting anything) likewise constrain human action.

    Nobody is calling for chaos – part of the optimal game-theoretic path is the exploitation of gains from trade; a corollary to that is that folks who don’t play nice, have trouble getting second dates.

    • The “arc of history” GT?

      Sir Alex Fraser Tyler, the Scottish jurist and historian (1742-1813) wrote,“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage.”

      Although it can be debated, I would say that astute observers would put the USA somewhere along the final three stages.

    • @GT:
      I’m dying of pleasure reading your post: you had me at “It’s fucking axiomatic”

      You, sir, in the immortal words of someone, ROCK!

  13. Great article!!! I will include in my website (What’s Pissed Me Off) tomorrow. I included “Goodbye, Number Five” earlier too. I am a non-hyphenated anarchist.

    i have a weekly article named “It’s Sunday!!!!” which is links to corrupt cops in newspapers. (Guess which day it is on. LOL) I call it “It’s just me, watching the watchers”.

    Anyway, keep up the good work!!

  14. Interesting how people are so obsessed with the security of airplanes when there have been relatively few attacks against them. And those which have been conducted, such as the famous underwear bomber, have been comic opera affairs. One wonders what would happen if there were a serious terrorist threat, such as that faced by Mexico or Pakistan today. Would we see the TSA and its minions disintegrate in the face of people who could actually fight back? Some to think of it, if the TSA really wants to “protect” Americans, why then do they not all volunteer to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or perhaps try to porn-scan members of Mara Salvatrucha as they cross the American frontier?

    • Let’s – for the sake of discussion – set aside 4th and 5th Amendment (and related) issues and accept the premise that TSA gropes (and the rest of it) really are about “keeping us safe” rather than obedience training.

      Ok. What about the border, then?

      The government spends more time hassling American citizens trying to board commercial flights than it does trying to keep illegal aliens from entering the country, let alone doing anything to monitor them once here.

      This glaring juxtaposition alone proves that TSA gate rape is about domination and subjugation – of American citizens. About normalizing/routinizing random searches and seizures, to acclimate the population to such things in order to get them to accept more and worse such things.

    • Burke101 there have been many airplane attacks and hundreds killed. Now we have underwear bombers. Why? Because we have security that helps to stop the big stuff. It is funny that people like you say that there are few attacks on us. You forget it is because many have been stopped with added security.


      • And why are airplane attacks (and other terrorist actions) perpetrated? Because of foreign policy.

        So…we need the state to protect us from the problems created by the state, which creates even more problems in the process?

        • And most people seem convinced of the goodness of the state’s foreign policy. They believe the state protects them from people who ‘hate us because we are free’. They think that radicals from thousands of miles away want us to live the way they want us to live. Amazing how control freak americans project their own ways upon imagined enemies.

      • No we have underwear bombers because Rapiscan needs to sell some nude scanners to the TSA. Consipiracies to make big money from the sheep can’t happen, Enron never happened right? People never conspire to fleece the sheep? I say follow the money man.

        Even if not purposeful (consipiracy) like others on here I agree that our foreign policy is contemptuous to our liberties and freedoms here. I long for the days when we actually kept our elected Kings somewhat on a collar and the wars limited by a now dead constitution.

        As far as TSA I don’t feel one bit safer and in fact more in danger. I don’t want to microwave my skin so they can see me naked. So I don’t fly not because of fear of terrorist but because of out of control government. By the way can’t a real terrorist can now strike at the gate killing more people or maybe get around the gate wearing a TSA costume? And who did stop the underwear bomber? Wasn’t it a bunch of passengers who ignored the past decrees of government to not challenge a terrorist or hostage taker? Name a instance where TSA has stopped one attack?

  15. Clovers exist because their egos are easily manipulated. They believe that they are support “good”, and that you are supporting “evil.” This belief comes PRIOR to evidence, meaning all evidence is interpreted in light of the egoic identity that the government has spent trillions of dollars creating.

    You asked it this is a genetic flaw – the answer is YES. Government propaganda show us that the ego is the achilles hill to the mind of the public. There is nothing that “truth” can do to combat the self-defense mechanisms of the ego.

    For Freedom to exist, people will have to set their easily-manipulated egos aside and listen to reason and evidence. OR The government will have to stop propagandizing. We know the latter will never happen, and the former is unlikely to happen any time soon.

    So we continue repeating the historical pattern – freedom followed by growing government followed by tyranny, followed by collapse.

    This is simply social evolution. Out of the ashes comes freedom somewhere else in the world.

    I am convinced that another United States will emerge soon somewhere else in the world and that there will be a mass exodus from the collapsing Western World to the new Land of The Free.

    Nation-states cannot be deposed, but competition between them, over time, leads to greater individual freedom.

    • The ego is a good a point. People get very angry if their illusions are shattered. It doesn’t matter that those like ourselves are correct, the typical clover has way too much invested in beliefs that were put into him starting in grade school. They won’t believe anything else because they’ve got their ego invested in these beliefs.

      I don’t think there will be a new land of the free. It will be bombed by the USAF or USNavy long before it gets to that point.

  16. Another excellent editorial Eric. Thank you for writing, and for sharing that pulse of liberty that courses through you!

    I’ve been trying to awaken Clovers for 11+ years. I’ve heard the mantra, “If I’ve done nothing wrong – then I’ve got nothing to hide” so many times that it sickens me.

    But my love of liberty and my understanding of our unalienable rights prevents me from stopping. Since I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and our rights some 40 years ago as a Vietnam-era vet, I’ll continue to keep my word and fight for liberty until I die.

    As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago, “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .”

    I prefer a peaceful solution to America’s problems, but of course the globalists desire a violent end to everything, as that helps them accomplish their goal of mass eugenics.

    Either way I stand ready in defense of liberty.

    • Thanks, Don!

      I have heard – and hope it’s true – that there is a segment of the military and also of law enforcement that agrees with us; that won’t take part in what I expect is coming – or at least, will take part on the right side of the battle.

      Someone sent me a great quote from Samuel Adams about bootlicking Tories during the revolution who craved security – and money – above all, even liberty (and thus, their dignity as men):

      “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

      The above is beyond the comprehension of Clovers.

      • That segment you write of Eric, those military and law enforcement people (both current, active, retired, discharged, and reservists, etc) that agree with us Eric — are all part of Oathkeepers at . The organization is free to join, and I’ve been a member since its founding some years ago. I encourage all active or former law enforcement and military to go to the website and read their list entitled “Oath Keepers: Orders We Will Not Obey”. Thousands have joined and it is growing by leaps and bounds. If you get a chance check them out Eric, and their list – you might find it encouraging. I do.

  17. Not much to add, other than to point out that to the committed ‘Clover’ libertarians are sociopaths. “How can you think about your so-called ‘freedom’ (1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 6th amendment, 7th amendment, 8th amendment, etc.) when we face so many dangers?” People have been conditioned to think that other people’s freedom threatens them.

    • Hi Lloyd,

      Yep – I’ve had one of the resident Clovers here try to make exactly that point. Here’s what he wrote:

      “Eric one thing that you forget is our goverment is there to allow us to have life and property. Both of wich are a major thing in the constitution. If you allow people with weapons the freedom to board public transportation then the goverment is doing nothing to protect my constitutional right to have life and property. The same thing for drunks on the road and the same thing for reckless drivers. I believe that having someone talk to me or search me for weapons while in a public event or transportaion is protecting my rights to life and property far more than taking away any rights. YOu always have the right not to use public transportation or use our public roadways if you do not want to be checked as a hinderance to my constitutional rights.”

      Of course he has it exactly backwards.

      Another Clover (one named Gil) literally called me a sociopath for taking the position that a person should only be pursued by the law/police after he has done something wrongful – or at least, given specific reason to believe he may be about to do something wrongful.

      To this Clover, potential wrongdoing – however abstract and generic – is fundamentally the same as actual specific wrongdoing and should be dealt with pre-emptively.

      These are case studies of the mentality we’re up against…

  18. methylamine said, “if we (normals) learned to recognize the sociopaths and ostracize them, preventing them from achieving positions of power”

    While admirable and worthy under most circumstances, that is not possible, it’s as if you were trying to stop moths from being attracted to lights.
    Also, it does nothing about those who support the sociopaths

    methylamine said, “I used to call myself a libertarian of the anarcho-capitalist strain; but it freaks people out”

    The kind of People that are freaked out about that are Clovers, they freak out about most anything.

    Are you simply looking for a new name for what you are? “Agorism… a type of anarcho-capitalism.”

    I think we need an umbrella, liberty seekers is good for me.

    Anyway, this was a great article.

    • Thanks, Clark!

      I do like the way Methyl has identified the “normals” vs sociopaths and their low-grade Clover enablers. It’s a very useful way to describe our predicament, I think.

  19. Eric:

    Another great point. However, I think as many “conservatives” have the clover mentality as liberals. Probably more so with respect to police abuse and drug “enforcement.”

    I was an ignorant neocon up until I followed a link to a Ron Paul article on LRC 5 years ago and have “taken the red pill” so to speak ever since.

    Here’s my way to look at ANY new social program being proposed “for the greater good:”

    If it’s so great, so outstanding, why on earth does it have to be MANDATORY.

    We all agree that cell phones are a great idea and I’d hazard a guess nearly everyone owns one. Was their use mandated by law? No. Was the government the “only” entity that could have produced such a technically complex and massive infrastruture to support their use? No.

    The same argument applies to everything.

    When it comes down to the REAL issues – the two parties are 100%identical.

    Tell me – If McCain were president right now – how many “anti-war” rallies would be going on because of Libya and increased troops in Afghanistan? MANY

    If McCain were president now, how many Liberals would be up in arms about the civil rights violations of the porno-scanners (and conversely – how many conservatives would be fine with them)?

    Liberals are “anti-war” – until there is a Blue guy in the White House.

    Conservatives are against “wealth redistribution” – until it’s wealth redistribution to Lockheed Martin.

    Liberals are for ending drug prohibition – until they have the executive branch majority and the majority of both legislative branches and STILL do nothing about ending prohibition.

    Conservatives “value all life” – unless its “collateral damage” in one of the many wars that they can never get enough of – or the life of some “scumbag” who was “dumb enough to talk back to the law.”

    The whole game sickens me.

    • Hi Blake,

      You’re right (unfortunately)… they do.

      I have pointed out to several I know that a great deal of what they are now complaining about Obama doing was made possible (or easier) by the loathsome precedents set by their hero The Chimp, whom they never criticized and often praised for reasons that I could never fathom.

      Of course, The Chimp did not start the trend – but he did greatly accelerate it. Ever since 911 this country has been fast-tracked to full-blown police state status and that is the legacy of The Chimp. His successor merely picked up the ball and ran with it.

      The warfare state is as incompatible with liberty as the welfare state, but “good Republicans” don’t understand this. Republicanism now has more in common with corporatism or even outright fascism than conservatism. And the alternative to Republican corporatism/fascism? Left-liberal Democratic socialism.

      Either way, liberty loses – and government wins.

  20. First, There is NO Freedom without the ability to say NO. Second, “the greater good” is just a progressive code for “Ta da” Communisim. When the RIGHTS of the individual can be denied for “the greater good” of society, what else could you call it? In fact, in a democracy, 51% could vote the 49% into slavery. Here, in what is left of America, in a REPUBLIC, the minorities have rights as well. Those rights are codified by the Constitution, not granted by it. They are inalienable, as long as some mental defective like Clover doesn’t give them away for you, in the name of “the greater good”

    • Amen.

      Napoleon supposedly declared that only a small minority of humanity is capable of living without coercion, in freedom. I hate to say it but I think he may have been right. Millions of people in this country clearly have no problem with all sorts of coercion, provided they see it as “protecting” them, providing them some material benefit or imposing something on others they think should be imposed on them.

      How many people do you know who really believe in liberty? In no coercion exercised by either individuals or individuals/groups acting under color of “the government” except in response to coercion (force) initiated by someone else?

      Most “conservatives” love the American Empire – the “fight fer freedom and democracy” all over the world. They wave flags and rah-rah such atrocities as our assault upon Iraq and lately, Libya – very much like the Sieg Heiling crowds in Germany after the fall of Poland and France.

      I’ve attended several Tea Party events and this is what they talk about. And of course, the Islamic Bogeyman. But never any real talk about deconstructing the Leviathan, either at the federal, state or local level. I got a lot of abuse here in my small southern town for broaching an objection to taxes on real estate as an assault on liberty, because they make true ownership an impossibility. What about the schools? What about the kiiiiids? That’s what I got. They’re statists as afflicted with the disease in their own way as the “liberals” they complain about.

      • I agree with you about property taxes.

        For most things, once you pay for it then it is yours to keep.

        Property and motor vehicles are two things that you continue to pay fees/taxes if you wish to continue using the property/motor vehicle. (At least in NJ where there are property taxes and yearly registration fees.)

        I would like for another way to pay for the funding of government and education.

        I do think that providing a quality education is a benefit for the state and for the individuals that take advantage of the education offered to them.

        Having only a private education would in my opinion lead to education primarily being provided to people in higher SES (Socioeconomic status).

        A sales tax might be one way to replace the revenue currently collected via property taxes. Taxes added to different products might make sense as well.
        (For example: Fuel/energy taxes to help pay for transportation departments. Tax on children’s goods to education funding.)

        • The entire point of these policies is, I suspect, precisely what Marx intended and expected. We have most of the major planks of the Communist Manifesto already enacted into law, including heavy “progressive” taxation, taxes on real property and public (government) education.

          People were better educated – more capable of thinking critically – before government schools existed. Go read the pamphlets written for the “average Joe” back in late 18th century colonial America. For example, Paine’s “Common Sense.”

          What we have now are not schools but indoctrination and socialization centers with an emphasis on skills training. It is not education in the classical sense – and this is a key reason why the average person is a fuuuuuhhhhhhtball venerating, American Idol watching ignoramus. He may be functionally literate; he may even have a great deal of technical knowledge relevant to his specific area of work. But he can’t think – or isn’t used to doing so. By earlier American – and Western – standards, such a person would not be considered educated but just a well-trained worker ant.

          And that is precisely the point of the whole exercise.

          • I am convinced that is the point. It’s to damage people so they can’t be a threat. I have become convinced by what I’ve read in recent years and my own government school experience that government school exists to crush free thinking. I now believe the greatest crime while in government school is to show independent thought. (this comes from my reading on the nature of government school and my own experiences)

            Government school damages people. Especially those of lower “SES”. I think no school, just self learning, is better than government school. And maybe that is the solution for the economically disadvantaged, simply provide the tools for self teaching. It will likely be a vast improvement over what exists today.

          • @BrentP

            “. . . simply provide the tools for self teaching.”

            In some cases this may be a better alternative for education. Libraries and Universities are a great source of knowledge.

            In many cases, a library can be funded at a more economical price than the current system.

            In schools today it can be difficult at times to effectively teach to an individual when you are responsible for working with 25+ students at a time.
            (not all of them are always interested in learning that day.)

            Education requires a motivated student, effective teachers, involved parents. If the student and parents do their part, the teacher is not as critical.

          • Please give us some examples of “indoctrination and socialization centers” as you talk of the public school system. It is easy to talk about how evil things are if you give no evidence of what you say is happening.


          • Clover, I experienced it first hand in the government schools. I was deliberately and publicly targeted by teachers when I showed signs of independent thought and study. When my grade was teacher discretion it was always the low side… everything changed when I went to a PRIVATE university. That was my first hint something was really wrong with government school. Years later I read Gatto’s book as well as “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” and then it all made perfect sense… every experience I had fit right into place.

            25 years later my grade school classmates told me they thought me one of the smartest kids in the school…. but that was what they thought. the official honors always went to the kids who showed proper conditioning.

            • I had an interesting experience growing up that gave me some perspective on the difference between government and non-government schools.

              From kindgarten through 5th grade I attended a fairly exclusive private school. Then we moved and my parents put me into a government public school.

              I was so far ahead of the other kids in areas such as reading/writing (I was and had been reading adult-level books by this time; I had a working knowledge of both German and French) that I was literally bored to tears by the “instruction” I received at the hands of the government skoo’ “teachers.” I also soon realized that many of them were incompetent – a realization that was both demoralizing and destructive. I lost all respect for them. I “did my own thing” – and ignored and evaded them to the extent possible.

              Whatever progression I made from that point forward, until college, was a result of my own desire for additional knowledge. I became a kind of autodidact. Junior high and high school were for the most part a waste of my time. I was better-read than (and more articulate) than almost all the “teachers.” I probably could have gone directly from 7th or 8th grade to college, at least in terms of English, philosophy and history. I’m not bragging; I’m commenting on the quality of the “head start” I received.

              In the private school I attended, the instructors had impressive resumes; math teachers were mathematicians; English instructors typically held advanced degrees in literature – and so on. Most could have qualified as college professors.

              In public skoo’ the typical teacher has a degree in “education” – and next to no academic qualifications in their (alleged) field. They are baby-sitters and guards, not educators.

              I think this experience was extremely formative; it prodded me to think about the nature of the government school system and what its true purposes might be.

              For bright, motivated kids, government schools are worse than prisons.

    • jesse, where is my “inalienable” rights of the Constitution of right to life and property? You and others think that these are not rights. You think that you can drive a car without insurance or the abiltiy to pay if you cause major damage and say F–k you when they ask you to pay damages. The same goes to driving drunk. F–k you if I kill your family members or destroy your property exercising my right to drive in a state that often leads to major accidents. F–k your family if they are riding on a plane where I did not allow anyone to check for weapons or bombs. F–k you if you are on the highway where I exercise my right to drive 127 mph through traffic weaving between lanes and passing on the right or the left or whatever I dang well please.

      Then I hear about libertarians think some laws are ok. How can you have laws when everyone has the right to only obey the ones they feel like and it does not matter that scientific evidence is against that thought process they use.

      • You do realize that the problems you are curing with more government are problems created by the government? In this case you are using mandatory insurance to cover up the fact that the government’s court monopoly makes it possible for people to say ‘f you’ and not pay for damages. Why? Because the damages cost less than bringing the lawsuit thanks to the government!

        Every example you use is a problem created by government. Airline security? Problem created by US federal government foreign policy. The government is the problem…

      • Dear god, do you *STLL* not get it Clover?

        The very basis of libertarian law is common law; that is, you’re free to do as you please as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to do the same. Put more simply, property laws are the very basis of freedom; starting with my life, the ultimate property, and all the proceeds of my life’s effort–the land I buy, the stuff I own. Violate my property–by theft, fraud, or injury–and the *real* law is against you.

        Libertarians aren’t against all law; only administrative law, under which we live. So it’s not “F–k you if you XYZ”; you’ve committed a real tort, a crime against person or property. That’s real law, common law, not bureaucratic nanny-statism.

        I’ll give you one better. On your putative highway where one of us–well that would be ME–is going 127: where is the damage? If I’m competent to do it and the (private) road owner permits it, no-one is harmed. If I’m an incompetent and do it inappopriately, harming someone in the process…there’s your tort under Common Law, and I’m liable for the damages.

        Under statism, I’m reduced to the lowest common denominator regardless of my skill or the capabilities of the car; and who benefits from my ticketing? Yep, the ever-rapacious State.

        It gets worse though. People are lulled into a false sense of security under assinine speed and other traffic laws–so much so that they become complacent. “I’m driving the speed limit!” they mewl as the apply makeup, chat on their cells, and scarf down Big-Macs. They think that by Submitting and Obeying they’re “safe”, not realizing that safety is THEIR responsibility.

        Why do I bother? You won’t understand what I’ve written.

        Go read John Taylor Gatto to understand how you were brain-damaged in government skewl. It’s an intended consequence that you are unable to parse logical argument. It’s a happy side-effect that you’re also easily corralled by a sense of irrational fear.

        Clovers are like the frightened rabbits in Watership Down. It’s so sad.

        • meth I totally agree with your statement ” you’re free to do as you please as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to do the same”
          Driving 127 mph OFTEN leads to more accidents and severe and extreme accidents when dring through traffic. That can and often does interfere with my rights. If you have perfect roads with mutiple lanes and the speed limit is set very high then you are safer than on the roads that we have today. Then someone can take another route than to be on a highway that can contain idiots.

          Then there allowng drunks on the highway because you do not want to do any prevention. You would rather pick up the pieces afterwords.

          What it comes down to is that libertarians are for zero prevention and only say it is ok to do something after they kill or injure someone. Everyone else realizes that speeding through an intersecion a couple of seconds after it turns red very often causes accidents and major injury and death so they decide to try to prevent that behavior. People realize that somewhere around a third of traffic deaths were causeed by a drunk so they try to do something to prevent it. Many statistics show that peolpe that oten speed and get tickets for it cause far more than their share of accidents so they try to correct it.

          Do libertarians change the oil in their car engine ever or do they just wait and see what happens after a couple of hundred thousand miles. Do libertarians put gas in their car when it is below a quarter or do they just wait to see what happens?

          No Clovers

          • You started out well but then lapsed into a total FAIL, followed by an even less-than-fail with a non-sequitur that would do Benny Hill proud.

            What IS it with Clovers and an aversion to logic?

            Step one: Clover, go study the Trivium: logic, grammar, rhetoric.

            Step two: hear me clearly: libertarians don’t advocate swinging axes in crowded theater lines and “picking up the pieces” afterward. It is *because* we’re personally responsible that we only swing axes–or drive 120+–when it is possible to do so safely.

            When others share the same sense of personal responsibility, you have situations like the German Autobahn–where the rate of traffic fatalities is LOWER than ours per mile driven.

  21. Touching on the point you make Eric–on making Clover personally face the people they want to control–I’ve had some success with the following line of argument.

    First, establish that (non-common-law) laws such as seatbelt laws ultimately involve men pointing guns at you. Take them through the chain of events; pulled over for no seatbelt, ticketed, ignore ticket, warrant issued, and BAM!–men with guns kidnap you and put you in a cage.

    If you can still keep their attention, ask them if THEY would force you into a cage at gunpoint.

    A particularly bright Clover might be able to make the connection–A-Ha! I’ve caused men with guns to cage people for a stupid law…

    But dear God it’s so tiresome.

    You have to remember too, the Clovers use a potent weapon: the 2 to 4 percent of the population who are sociopaths, and REALLY love power. Clovers, themselves borderline sociopaths but not truly committed to it personally, hire sociopaths and call them “elected representatives”.

    I’m convinced that if we (normals) learned to recognize the sociopaths and ostracize them, preventing them from achieving positions of power, we could shift history in a favorable direction.

    I’m even more convinced that the concept of a nation-state has been a catastrophic experiment in legalized genocide; roughly 160 million people have been killed by governments in the last 100 years *not including wars*. The death of the nation-state will bring about a much more peaceful and prosperous era.

    I used to call myself a libertarian of the anarcho-capitalist strain; but it freaks people out to hear the “anarcho” part–even though the arguments likening any State to a Mafia are quite convincing. But there’s a much more interesting and sly branch of libertarianism–Agorism. Google it! It might be the way out of the Matrix!

      • Me too. While I’m not an agorist (hey, you there – did you see that? I don’t participate in the black market – yes, you, the guy reading the data you mined from AT&T’s second set of servers…), I respect what I consider the fundamental insight of agorism. That is, just as we libertarians recognize lots of common phrases as collectivist, it’s also collectivist to imagine “free society” and “unfree society.” Instead, there are free and unfree people. We’re always in a state of anarchy, if we choose to see it as such – it’s just that, as many fear, in this particular anarchy one group has arisen to become the most powerful gang. It didn’t, of course, do it by force of arms – that’s impossible in a sufficiently large, complex, and armed society – but by convincing the people it had the moral imperative to govern. Convince yourself that moral charge doesn’t exist, and it’s just a gang, albeit a powerful one.

        This helps us to avoid some common libertarian traps, such as arguing with the police and asserting “our rights.”

        • I earlier posted a comment about Napoleon’s belief that only a relatively tiny minority of human beings are capable of existing together, in peace, absent coercion or its threat (and hence, government and other collectivist/coercive entities).

          I think he was right.

          The people posting here (Clover excepted, of course) could probably live together with no laws – or cops as such. No outside restraint or threat is necessary to keep us from stealing, raping, killing or otherwise using force against others. We just don’t do it – and we could interact on the basis of respect for one another’s rights and voluntary, cooperative effort.

          The problem is most people can’t – and even if we could somehow found a community (a polis, as the Greeks called it) based on agoro-Libertarian principles, Clovers would arise amongst us, just as they always have in every free (well, mostly free) society that has ever existed. Some of our kids would become Clovers, for example.

          What to do with them?

          • Arrrgg I groaned out loud when I read this….because it’s so hideously, inescapably true.

            Endless frontiers are the answer. Only hard living, which does not tolerate parasitism, can bring out the best in free individuals–and harshly punish the un-free or would-be tyrant. On Earth, we’ve largely exhausted frontiers unless you’re willing to live in arctic, desert, or mountain conditions.

            In my favorite genre, sci-fi, the frequent solution requires ever-more-remote outposts where libertarian communities thrive briefly before being overrun by collectivists. The survivors escape to found even more remote outposts, rinse, repeat. But hell! Do I really have to live out “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” to enjoy freedom, or can I eke it out earthside somewhere?

            One answer may be the theory vs. practice of freedom. In the U.S., if we followed the constitution, we’d be the freest people on earth. We don’t, and moreover the Stasi have the most resources of any police state anywhere to f*ck with you in the most intimate ways. In some “third world” country, their legal framework might be crap, but day-to-day freedoms abound because they just don’t have the resources to erect a virtual Panopticon like here.

            Doug Casey advocates the idea of “phyles”–taken straight from Neal Stephenson’s excellent “Snow Crash” and “The Diamond Age”.

            It’s time to stop thinking about fixing nation-states and making them more libertarian. It’s a lost battle, because clovers/sociopaths *always* take them over. Rather, let the nation-state fail–it’s a murderous institution anyway–and form virtual and real phyles with like-minded people.

            Which is why Agorism appeals to me so!

            • I, too, am a big sci-fi fan, especially Heinlein and Dick. And I think what you’ve said (and what writers such as Heinlein wrote) is exactly it. America was free at first because anyone who wanted to avoid the Clovers could do so, just by moving. And there were few Clovers for many years because (as you note) a frontier-type environment doesn’t cotton to Clovers. Prosperity – and population increase – brings with it Cloverism. The Rise of the Defectives, you might call it. Creatures who cannot exist except as parasites and who are well-adapted to organized society, where their particular “skills” are very effective.

              I’ve long had this fantasy of being able to board a space ship that would take us to a new Earth, depopulated and free of Clovers – where we could start fresh.

              But since we’ve not developed such capability – and Earth Mark I is almost full-up … what to do? Where to go?

          • The ability to live together without government has nothing to do with politics except libertarians feel they have the right to do anything that comes to their head no matter if it is good for the rest of the ideal group or not. In the real world either republicans or democrats would have the ability to live in the ideal society far better than a libertarian community. The republicans are for less government control which is a good thing and democrats are for the betterment of everyone even the lowest class of people. The libertarian view is for get the f–k out of my way and others need to live with my decisions and I could care less if it hurts others.

            • This is even more incoherent than your usual!

              Unfortunately, Republicans are not for less government; they’re for a different kind of government (corporatist/fascist). And Democrats “are for the betterment of everyone even the lowest class of people”? You mean the betterment (as they define it) of some people with other people’s money – and with power for them in the bargain, too.

              The Libertarian view is (among other things) that an action that’s immoral when committed by an individual – such as theft – does not become moral when a group of individuals does it.

              The Libertarian view is that a person’s personal life is no one else’s business – certainly not the government’s business – and that the only legitimate purpose of government is to deal with people who actually cause harm to others. Otherwise, live and let live – and leave your neighbor alone.

              But I realize such things are beyond the ken of a Clover.

          • Eric the libertarian view may be to leave me alone and let me be as long as it does not hurt others but that is not the libertarian view I hear evey day. Who was it Rand or Ron Paul that said that the government should not do anything to protect people but wait for hundreds of people to die so that others can tell for themselves that you should not eat or do something.

            No Clovers

            • Clover, your understanding of Libertarian ideas is as stilted and misinformed as your understanding of, well, everything else.

              The premise of your argument – that government protects us from harm – is false on its face. Did government prevent the recent e-coli and salmonella outbreaks? Did it prevent the Wall Street banksters from ass-raping the entire country? How about the long litany of birf defects arising from various FDA-regulated drugs?

              Clovers like you take a passive view toward everything; you want to be protected. You won’t assume responsibility for protecting yourself. You want government to act in loco parentis, even when it’s obvious that it’s incompetent and – worse, it’s degrading for any adult to desire to be coddled and protected by a parent, ersatz or otherwise.

              But there’s no reaching you; your type treasures “security” and “safety” (the image if not the reality) over anything and everything else.

    • The problem with the clover mentality is that when making the link between the laws and “the violence inherent in the system”* causes them to think the person making the connection is a kook or lacking maturity.

      They’ve never experienced the violence, so they think it doesn’t exist. They don’t experience it because they conform and submit. They’ve never been “different” or if they have they consider it a sign of their maturity that they now conform and obey. They will then deride the person making the connection as juvenile or just insane. They simply disregard it. To them there is no force because they comply regardless.

      It’s like a sticker I saw in the window of a smart car… to paraphrase it stated that responsible people obey the law and don’t speed… If they can’t even figure out the nature of the law from absurdly low northeast IL speed limits they’ll follow the law right into the gas chamber because it’s the law.

      Recognizing sociopaths… most people can’t or won’t. Those that do accept it as a ‘better than the alternative’. They really think government holds civilization together. That without state violence we get Somalia. It doesn’t register that Somalia is what happens when multiple forces attempt to impose a state, not the lack of one. They fear their fellow man far more than they fear the government and cannot make the connection that the government is the worst of their fellow man. Questions to that point usually result in the discussion moving towards insults.

      Most “normals” won’t recognize the sociopaths because they come pre-programmed with cultural and instinctive blind spots that the sociopaths exploit. The non-normals fall into two camps… the sociopaths and us. And the sociopaths offer them free candy.

      Separating from clovers… I’ve found they are big believers in ‘love it or leave it’. So I ask them why don’t they leave since this is the place that was supposed to be best suited for people like myself (before they ruined it).

      *Dennis, Monty Python and the Holy Grail,

      • Absolutely right, Brent. There will be a few Clovers who will be awakened with the shock of a taser, but most of the submit and obey types won’t meet with anything they will recognize as oppression. They do a better job of enslaving themselves than the worst tyranny.
        In the end, they lack morals or basic empathy. They watch others suffering and are either indifferent or enjoy it. The latter is especially true of fans of fascist porn, like the TV show “Cops”.

      • Very interesting comments and Brent, that’s one of my alltime favorite MP scenes…..well, bring out your dead.
        WRT the tactic of “love it or leave it” by predominantly progressive clover types, that seems anomalous given the extreme right-wing origin of the term, but not when one considers the basic similarities between “conservatives” and “liberals” as we see those terms used today.
        Finally, my favorite bumper sticker says “Admit it, our public debate has been reduced to reading each others’ bumper stickers”. In that line, TN now has a state law that allows cops to ticket people for having obscene bumper stickers. Hopefully, people will revolt over that one. But, there are tons of clovers on the road so who really knows?

      • I think a quick way to tell a clover is if they believe there is a real difference between Democrats and Republicans. The only real difference is they can’t decide on the best and fastest way to get to socialism.

    • Give me one singe example where “seatbelt laws ultimately involve men pointing guns at you” when there were no other offenses. That is the ultimate made up statement.

      • It’s easy:
        Don’t pull over.
        Or if you want it done differently, pull over, get cited, then don’t pay the ticket and keep driving. Resist any attempts made to arrest you. The guns will come out.

        The fact you submit before the guns come out doesn’t mean the guns are not there.

        • Clovers never follow logic to its necessary conclusion.

          In Clover’s mind, the solution is: Submit, obey. Why, then you won’t have any trouble with the police!

          That’s bad enough. What’s worse is that Clovers don’t even see (because, having been indoctrinated rather than educated) that even those who Submit and Obey are not necessarily safe, either. Because any system based on arbitrary violence (and its threat) can become (duh) arbitrarily violent.

          A system like that attracts sadists and sociopaths; abnormal men. Because normal men recoil from dehumanizing and brutalizing others for no reason (beyond some vaguely asserted “they might” or “what if”). And abnormal men given arbitrary power over others will wield that power however they like (and they like it a lot) because they can.

          Clover imagines himself to be immune – safe – because he’s a good rule-following servile Clover.

          One day – not far off – he is going to get a rude awakening.

        • Exactly.

          Fail to pull over – and it becomes a felony pursuit.

          You will be run off the road, dragged from your vehicle, thrown to the ground – with many guns pointed at you.

          Then you will be taken to jail and caged.

          Because you declined to “buckle up for safety” – and refused to obey the thug cop’s Achtung! to pull over and pay up.

        • brent P, your logic is flawed. Don’t pull over and you are breaking more laws than a seat-belt law. Get cited and you are free to leave, you never have to pay on when you get pulled over for a seat-belt violation. You are not arrested for a seat-belt violation so it is impossible to resist arrest for a seat-belt violation.


          • In other words – Submit. Obey.

            Typical Cloverite rationalization. Just obey the law – any law! all laws! – and you will be fine.

            Except it’s not true. Once the state (“government,” as you would call it) strays from its only legitimate purpose – the apprehension of people who use or threaten to use violence against others, or who defraud others – and becomes a Nanny trying to force people to do what it (that is, what the Clovers who control it) thinks they ought to be doing, “for their own good,” or their “safety,” it becomes oppressive by definition and inevitably, tyrannical.

            Reason? “for your own good” (and “safety”) are entirely subjective. The arguments we have been having here should be sufficient to make the point. And once you start giving the state power to write laws – and enforce them – based on your (or my) subjective – that is, arbitrary – ideas about “ought to” and “for your own good,” you have released the hounds. You have set the stage for others to assert that laws should be passed based on their subjective and arbitrary notions. In short order, you have what we have: A suffocating Nanny State that spews forth an endless laundry list of rules and laws governing matters over which it has no moral right to intercede. A busybody state in which cops and authorities of all sorts are a constant aggravation. Where you’re no longer free, but constantly being told what to do – and threatened with violence if you don’t.

            This mess is avoided when the law confines itself to going after people who have actually done some harm to others, or whose actions clearly indicate they are about to do some harm to others. Beyond that lies tyranny.

            I write the foregoing not for your benefit, because I know that you are not capable of grasping the logic.

            Oh, and PS: If you don’t pay the seat belt fine, the result will be suspension of your driver’s license. If you get caught driving, you will then be arrested by men with guns.

          • Yes Eric, “sadists and sociopaths’ ask you for your own good to wear a seat belt to decrease the death and injury rate by a HUGE amount and it has. Why not just say they will get out their gun and shoot you if you do not comply. Something ironic about that. You know someone may tend to back you up if you said they are trying to get you to do something that will harm you but it is the opposite. You say how they beat people up but the facts say they are doing things that help people and not harm them.

            • Clover, a sadist/ sociopath is someone who gets off using force against others; to bend them to his will. Who enjoys dominating and humiliating others. Who cannot leave other people alone.

              How would you characterize a man who would threaten to use violence against another person for refusing his command to buckle up for safety?

              Because that is precisely what will happen if you decline to obey such a command. First, the costumed thug will pull you over. He will tell you that “the law” requires that you buckle up, that you are not buckled up – and here’s your ticket. If you refuse to accept the ticket – and continue to refuse to buckle-up – what happens next? The cop will threaten you with violence – and will use violence against you if you continue to fail to Submit and Obey.

              It is entirely possible you’ll end up being shot – for resisting arrest or “threatening officer safety” or some such garbage… all of which began with the initial refusal to Submit and Obey.

              Your whole worldview is a sad – and despicable – one. One that countenances limitless assaults (literally) against other people who have done nothing to you or to anyone else, on the basis of your (and your fellow Clovers’) god-damned sick desire to control other people “for their own good.”

          • Eric, your so called men with guns do not take out those guns unless you act like a stupid idiot and you are a threat. Of course people like you are always a threat because your kind tries to use you constitutional right to start beating up a policeman.


          • Clover, Just peacefully resist some trivial micromanaging order. If there are no guns behind it as you claim then there’s no reason for you not to ignore it. Just ignore a fine. Just ignore some stupid law on something that bothers nobody else. Let your lawn grow taller than legally allowed. Keep it neat and maintained, but just longer than legally permitted. Don’t pay any fines. Don’t respond to court orders. Be entirely peaceful but don’t submit. See what happens. You know as well as I do what will eventually happen.

          • So Brent, are you saying if you do not submit and do not fight the police, they pull out their guns and blow you away?


            • Clover, you set a new standard with each post.

              To paraphrase a character I like, “allow me to elucidate for you” –

              * You let your grass grow; it’s your land, you’re harming no one – but the county has an ordinance that says you must cut your grass to “x” height.
              * The county sends a crew to cut your grass, after sending warning letters demanding that you cut the grass.
              * You ignore the county’s letters – and the county’s bill for cutting the grass.
              * You are issued further letters – and fines – which you continue to ignore.
              * The county will send men with guns to your home. If you ignore them, the guns will be pointed at you.

              Etc. Etc.

              Your Cloverite answer is – submit, obey. Then you will have no trouble! Except that even when yo do submit and obey, the cops may still beat/Tazer/shoot you anyhow.

              I know, I know. They deserved it – or asked for it – because they did not submit and obey.

            • More fodder for Clover:

              The Boynton Beach Police department’s ‘Officer of the Year’ for 2010 was indicted on Tuesday for conspiring to possess and traffic 500 grams of methamphetamine, according to U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer.

              The indictment accuses David Britto, 28, of drug dealing from June 2009 until March 4, 2011. Britto faces a potential life sentence if convicted, prosecutors said.

              Police Chief G. Matthew Immler released a statement saying, in part, “the Boynton Beach Police Department vigorously polices itself, and this case is an example of how law enforcement roots out corruption from within its own ranks.”

              He was caught in a Drug Enforcement Administration led Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force investigation.

              “The decision to deal drugs while carrying a badge is not only a breach of the law enforcement oath, but a community tragedy as well,” DEA Mark R. Trouville,Miami Special Agent in Charge said in a statement.

              Chief Immler echoed that sentiment in his statement.

              “We realize that when an officer stands accused of a violation of the public trust, all of law enforcement pays the price in eroded citizen confidence and the perception of diminished integrity,” Immler said.

              Article/picture here:


              Cops shoot unarmed citizen in CA:


              Cops shoot women with rubber bullets:


              Fat cop bullies kids:


            • More for you, Clover: This woman is being threatened with jail… for gardening in her own yard –

              OAK PARK, Mich. (WJBK) – “The price of organic food is kind of through the roof,” said Julie Bass.

              So, why not grow your own? However, Bass’ garden is a little unique because it’s in her front yard.

              “We thought it’d be really cool to do it so the neighbors could see. The kids love it. The kids from the neighborhood all come and help,” she said.

              Bass’ cool garden has landed her in hot water with the City of Oak Park. Code enforcement gave her a warning, then a ticket and now she’s been charged with a misdemeanor.

              “I think it’s sad that the City of Oak Park that’s already strapped for cash is paying a lot of money to have a prosecutor bothering us,” Bass told FOX 2′s Alexis Wiley…

              …”That’s not what we want to see in a front yard,” said Oak Park City Planner Kevin Rulkowski.

              Why? The city is pointing to a code that says a front yard has to have suitable, live, plant material. The big question is what’s “suitable?”

              We asked Bass whether she thinks she has suitable, live, plant material in her front yard.

              “It’s definitely live. It’s definitely plant. It’s definitely material. We think it’s suitable,” she said.

              So, we asked Rulkowski why it’s not suitable.

              “If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster’s dictionary, it will say common. So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers,” he said.

          • Clover, Eric already laid out the chain of events so I don’t have to… And essentially yes, if you don’t submit you’re risking assault up to being shot dead. It really doesn’t matter much any more if the cop even has legal footing. It did more in the past, but that has changed in recent years where the government’s courts have decided that we must submit to even UNLAWFUL actions by cops.

            Clover, since you don’t believe there is violence behind every tiny little law, why do you obey the laws other men have created for you to obey? Do you think of yourself as dumber than them? Do you think they are god-like? Do you think they have your best interests in mind and not theirs? Why do you obey all these micromanaging laws (well all the ones you know about) if you have no fear of punishment?

            • He obeys because he accepts Authority. It’s a circular thing. Authority legitimizes force. If Authority says so, it must be for our own good, right and proper. Hence. Obey and Submit.

              It’s quasi-religious. For example, actions that, when committed by an individual, would be regarded as wrong or evil (even by a Clover) are transformed, miraculously, by “the vote” and “laws” into morally acceptable – even laudatory – things.

              Clover would get upset if you or I threatened to beat him up or put him in a cage if he did not give us money to help us finance some project we thought worthy – or to “help” someone we deemed to be in “need.”

              But he has no problem with precisely the same thing being done to you or me by him and his fellow Clovers via “the vote” and “the law.”

              It’s not even (necessarily) a question of intelligence. Some Clovers are very bright – in the sense that they can acquire functional competence in highly technical/specialized areas. But the thing that unites them all is an incapacity to reason. To conceptualize. To think in terms of principles – and to apply them to specifics. It’s the result of either a defect or years of conditioning.

          • Eric, yep. that’s a perfect example. Being different is all it takes to get these control freaks to attack.

            But please allow me to go into this particular a little more… They don’t want gardening in the front yard because that’s what poor people used to do. Garden their entire yard, front, back, sides, to feed themselves. I have gotten the same sort of harassment with regards to my bicycle at times. it’s what poor people do. Same with old cars and doing your own car repair. it’s what *GASP* poor people do. so it’s attacked by the people who have to have everything thing the way they want it. People who don’t want any reminder or any appearance of real life. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1500 bicycle, a garden of heirloom seeds, or a car that’s worth $100K when it’s done. they see it as poor people behavior and they won’t tolerate seeing it. Image, illusion, and conformity. It’s what american society values most these days.

            • Yup – and I just don’t get it. Do you?

              I mean, the urge to impose conformity (and the urge to control others).

              It’s just foreign to my nature, I guess. But I’m a bit of a kook, so maybe that’s why!

          • Ok, I have now heard two people here that say that if you do not mow your lawn the police pull their guns on you. Since you state this as a fact, what are the names of the people that this happened to?


            • Sigh. No amount of “facts” or “Troof” will ever sway you, but here’s some more:

              Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Michigan, wanted to grow her own food. She was a fan of organic vegetables, so she decided to convert her front yard from the grass-and-tree landscaping typical in her neighborhood into an edible garden. Because she had just torn up the front lawn to install a new sewer system, she had a perfect opportunity to start fresh. She planted cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, cucumbers and herbs in raised wooden planters, and waited to reap her produce.

              A neighbor didn’t like her choice of landscaping.

              The neighbor called the city and complained that Bass’s yard disrupted the look of the neighborhood. The city agreed, and issued Bass a ticket.

              Bass was offended. Organic produce is expensive. If she wants to grow her own, she reasoned, why shouldn’t she be allowed to? She refused to change her yard. The city insisted; she lawyered up.

              Now, with neither party being willing to back down, the case is likely to go to a jury trial. If Bass loses, she faces up to 93 days in jail.

              Do you suppose they will ask her to go to jail voluntarily?


          • Cogito ergo sum

            I am a clover thinking thing!

            All laws are good.
            Wearing seat-belt is law.
            Therefore, wearing seat-belt is good.

            Please feel free to substitute any law in for “seat-belt” and you’ll understand cloverism logic.

          • ok Eric. I checked out the link. It was of course written by someone with an agenda. It said that she was growing vegetables. How tall were the weeds? When did she get shot at? People here say that police shoot at you if you do not mow your yard! I really doubt if there are any laws on the books about not growing vegetables but I am sure there afre for having weeds two foot tall in your front yard. If neighbors in your area make their yards look like a trash heap or junk yard then that decreases the property value when you try to sell your house. That is why there were laws on the books. If people did not like the laws of the town they live in then they should not have moved there in the first place. You are always free to move if you do not like the laws particularly if they were there before you moved in.

            No Clovers

  22. Happy 4th! Great article on the important issue of freedoms. From experience I know that trying to use reason or logic to convinve people who operate on emotions or feelings is useless. They are basically advocates of force. They want to “force” people to live in a certain way because it feels right. There is no convincing them short of force.

    Constitutional rights have been lost because it’s supporters have not used force to keep them intact. Freedom is only won or kept through blood. And until those that believe that way are willing to shed it, then freedoms will continue to disappear. No amount of talk will ever make a difference.

    • I think you’re right – and I think the time is coming when we will have to do more than just talk. I do not say this lightly, nor do I relish the prospect. I’d much prefer some sort of peaceful separation, since coexistence is not possible (because of them, not us).

      The irony is that so many Clovers see themselves as “liberal” and “caring” – not connecting the dots that their advocacy of force to achieve their “liberal” and “caring” goals makes them the most brutal sort of people imaginable. Cowardly, too. Because the typical Clover would never try to take your money himself, or force you to wear a helmet/seatbelt (and so on) himself. Instead, he “votes.” And he writes letters-to-the-editor.

      My hope is that someday Clovers will have to personally face the people they seek to control, with no “law” to stand athwart a settling of accounts.

      • I’d like to think that there is some peaceful way to coexist, or even to separate. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

        Coexistence is what we have now, and the burgeoning Nanny State shows now signs of slowing its cancer-like growth. Separation won’t do, either, as can be seen in what I perceive to be the dismal failure of The Free State Project.

        No, it’s going to come down to some serious unpleasantness.


        • I think so, too.

          The troubling thing is there are so many of them – and so few of us. And they are organized – while we are not.

          That’s the main thing I keep running up against, i.e., how do we fight back? Voting is not the answer. Even if by some miracle Ron Paul became the Republican nominee, he has no chance of being elected and even if he did and were, nothing would change. He’d probably be dead within six months anyhow.

          Even at the local level, Clovers abound. Here in my very rural (and very Republican) small Southern county, the big concern of the local Tea Party people is “Islamic extremism.” Meanwhile they argue with one another over new laws and taxes – not about getting rid of them, but how they’ll be implemented (and how much we’ll pay).

          I feel pretty hopeless about it all sometimes.

      • Ok Eric I give in. If you can think of a politition that says that he will not have anyone seached while boarding a plane and is all for drunks having a free run on our highways and no one will ever be talked to unless they crash into someone or kill someone and they get elected with such a platform then I will back what you say 100% because there is zero chance of it happening. There are too many people out there with a brain. They would be laughed off the ticket. It is not about people like me that you have to worry about but the 100s of millions of people like me that you have to worry about not following your platform.

        If you can get 100s of millions of people each year to ride mass transit or attend major public events and get thousands of people to attend events with our president with zero security then you are the most powerful person in the world.

        I would just like to see what the body count is with such a change. It is just a Nanny state that would be for keeping thousands from getting killed. It is this Nanny state that has decreased the death rate by thousands each year.


        • Well, Clover, that’s pretty much exactly it. You – Clovers – are many. We – who value liberty (and human dignity) more than “safety” and “security” – are few. Or fewer, at least.

          One difference between us is that we’d be content to leave you – the Clovers – free to enact all the anti-freedom police state edicts you wish to… for yourselves.

          We’re willing – eager – to leave you alone. But you can’t leave others alone. Your lust for power (the flip side of the craving to be led, to surrender yourselves to the power of some authority) is unquenchable.

          It amounts to what Lenin said:

          You may not be interested in government. But government is interested in you.

          One day – soon, I hope – we non-Clovers will have an opportunity to set you Clovers right.

          • Since you have not had any luck at getting people to follow your dangerous way of life where thousands of more people get killed and far more get injured, you then start making things up and try to anger people to get them to believe you. Anyone with eyes of their own and a brain know better.

            When you have people come on here and talking about the governement beating everyone up so much so that they feel they need to leave the country, the facts that they use are either made up but more often they give no examples at all.


          • Eric, you say that “Your lust for power” when you speak of me and others. That could not be farther from the truth. I vote to leave you and others alone if you come up with some means to keep drunks off the road and terrorists off of planes and out of our country and dangerous drivers off of the road etc. You come up with solutions to those problems then we will leave you alone.


        • @clover
          There are too many people out there with[out] a brain. — I corrected this for you.

          “It is not about people like me that you have to worry about but the 100s of millions of people like me that you have to worry about not following your platform.”

          I would think that more people would prefer to be left alone. As long as they are not harassed or bothered, they would generally leave others alone.

          It seems that people are more interested in taking advantage of the “system” because they observe: I am being taxed and receiving little benefit from my taxes. Therefore I should look to see where I can receive benefits that I can use to get something for my taxes.

          • No mithrandir, what I stated was correct. There are too many people with a brain to follow nonsense things that endangers them all.

            I am not being harassed or bothered. 100s of millions of other people are not either. I drive more than 95% of the time without even seeing a police car and 99.9999% of the time without being stopped by a safety stop. It is 100% of the time that I have never been searched. Harrassed and bothered? When and how much? Do you get harrassed and bothered daily?

          • Clover, your broad generalizations, and usage of fallacy/myths about the number of people ‘harassed or bothered’ only underscores your disconnect with reality.

            Government aggresses against the majority of the population in the form of taxes on a daily/weekly basis to murder more people than any ‘drunk driving’ or ‘terrorists on planes’ stats in your fantasy world.

            Here is simple question that deserves a good old ‘government educated’ clover answer: Are you more likely to be killed by a cop or a ‘terrorist’ this year?

            • Trust me, realist – Clover will say “a terrorist.” He’s beyond reason – and addled by fear. He and his type are the reason why we have “sobriety checkpoints” and TSA gropefests. It’s all about keeping us safe, you see.

          • Eric, I’m quite sure all clovers would avoid answering my question with statistics ( reality based numeric calculations with a mathetical margin of error ) because actually answering the question will only add to a clovers cognitive dissonance. Clovers hate when their contradictory ‘government created’ opinions are exposed.

            • Exactly.

              The essence of Cloverism is emoting. Fear. Which translates to: Protect me! And – control them. “Them” being other people, generically defined. Clovers never speak in terms of individuals. Thus, for example, they demand “we” (that is, they and their fellow-travelers) “get tough” on (put whatever category of generic undesirable – as defined by Clovers – you wish here) which really means: Impose rules, restrictions on everyone even when most people have done absolutely nothing to warrant it.

              And so it goes.

              Safety. Security.

              Submit. Obey.

        • You number the deaths in the “government-less world” in the thousands. Meanwhile, in “government world”, deaths are numbered in the millions. You are apparently afraid of “brain dead people” causing havoc when they do stupid things, not realizing that you want to put these same people in positions of power over the rest of us.

          The TSA was unnecessary even before 9/11/2001 was over, as evidenced by the fact that United Flight 93 passengers had started fighting back. You see, the brain-dead people you think do such a great job of keeping us safe actually contributed to the horror of the attacks, by informing people for years to not fight back. If a thief grabs your purse, let him have it. If a terrorist takes over the plane, then just sit tight and allow the government to get its butt in gear and eventually save you. What the government can’t have, however, is a liberty-minded people taking responsibility for their own security and social order (which they have successfully done in the past; read “The Not So Wild, Wild West” by Anderson and Hill), because then the lie that government is necessary would be exposed and rejected.

          • cavalier973 it does not matter if those people started fighting back on that flight. They were still all killed. Yes they may have stopped others from being killed but everyone in the plane was killed.

            The counrties with more security implemented at airports have had the fewest fatalities by terrorists even though some of those countries are the most targeted by terrorists.

        • Well, Clover, I might agree with you too, if the authorities were in fact keeping us safer. But they are not. A few years ago, here in Arizona, drunk drivers were the cause of 33% of all highway deaths. So the AZ State Legislature passed some of the most draconian drunk driving laws in the country. And now, if you get caught driving with more than one beer in your system, the government will bankrupt you and destroy your life. Has it worked? No. the latest stats show that drunks STILL account for 1/3 of the highway deaths in AZ. But there are a lot of people who have lost their livelihood, and payed millions of dollars in fines for doing nothing wrong. One of my regular customers was actually charged with DUI (and convicted by this runaway process) when she had NOT EVEN DRIVEN HER CAR. April (not her real name) was sitting on her couch enjoying a few adult beverages, and her neighbor called the police claiming April had backed into a car in the parking lot. The police knocked on her door, and, after a brief conversation, arrested her for DUI. Again she had gone nowhere near her car while drinking! After paying for lawyers etc. her life was a shambles. But of course, that does not really matter to Clover. After all, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

          • Hi Paul,

            Welcome, first of all!

            Reasoning with a Clover is like trying to convince a cinder block to pick itself up and cross the street.

            PS: Agree completely with your comments. Here in VA, they’ll get you if they find you “sleeping it off’ in your parked car. Even if you are in the passenger seat and the key is not in the ignition. In effect, they now punish responsible people (those who realize maybe it’s not a good idea to drive and would otherwise choose to “sleep it off”) while encouraging the irresponsible – after all, why not go ahead and drive?

          • Thanks Paul. I am sure I would still be out drinking and driving if the penalties are huge. I guess I wouldn’t. I know of many others that do not drink and drive because they do not want to pay the $5,000 for cost of a lawyer and probably loss of license. I gues it must be the people in AZ are not as smart as around here.

            No Clovers

            • Amazingly, Cloveroni, countless thousands still drive drunk – despite your laws and lust for more laws – just as criminal thugs still use guns to commit crimes, despite it being illegal for them to do so.

              Meanwhile, everyone else – people who are not the problem – suffers under an onerous and ever-increasing burden of laws and restrictions and infringements, courtesy of people like you who seem intellectually incapable of grasping the idea that maybe, just maybe, it would be more effective (and more fair) to focus on individual people who actually do something criminal rather than treat the entire population as presumptively criminal.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here