Dear Elisabeth…

49
1751
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

My dear Elisabeth, I see you are new to this forum (or at least to posting here).  Some of what follows my peers (Eric, dom, BrentP, methylamine, Mithrandir, Hot Rod, et al) have explained to you already. I will present it to you from my perspective in an effort to help you understand where we’re coming from. When I first started posting here on Eric’s site, I attempted to reason with Gil/Clover and was informed of the pointlessness of the endeavor by those who’d trod that path before me.  I soldiered on for a while but it didn’t take long to realize that what the Clover class suffers from is akin to religious zealotry. Facts, logic or reason will never prevail over cherry-picked data, emotion and going-along-to-get-along; Individual Liberty be damned.  I have reason to suspect that their livelihoods / retirement / disability checks / EBT cards depend on the perpetuation of redistributionist statism. I’ve called each of them out on what they do for a living repeatedly and they have consistently declined to answer in even a generic sense; which is a pretty good indicator they are of the parasite class.

The futility of reasoning with these trolling buffoons became self-evident. So I have resorted to being rude, crass and even vulgar at times when dealing with the Gil / Clover troll-a-thon.  When reasoning and logic do not work, verbal spanking is in order. In Gil’s case, he/she/it *seems* to come around to logic and reason (once in a while); but almost immediately relapses into ever more efforts to bait any that would take the hook into espousing violence against the machine.  My ‘venomous’ response to these pitiful creatures is done knowingly, willfully and intentionally; I make no apologies for this nor to them. Why? Because I strongly suspect them to be gun-vernment trolls with the intent and purpose of countering the message of Individual Liberty, wherever it sprouts, in favor of collectivism or “managing the herd.”  For this they are rewarded by the ruling elite if only by believing that they’re on “the winning team”.

The majority of people that post here, Elisabeth, subscribe to the Non-Aggression Principle and a philosophy of Live and Let Live.  Verbal / written smack-downs, insults and ridicule do not constitute physical harm nor should they ever evoke a physically violent response amongst the civilized.  Verbal / written response in kind is acceptable, expected and I would dare say even encouraged here as long as (a) you have your facts straight, and (b) you’re willing to accept and acknowledge it when someone more erudite than yourself gives you correction.  There’s no guarantee we won’t call you names. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.  Anyone who feels hurt, insulted or “dissed” in any way, shape or form is free to leave this venue and never return if the “venom” any of us are “spewing” here offends their delicate sensibilities.

However, if ‘you’ decide that ‘I’ need to wear a seatbelt or that I am ‘required’ to take any positive action that costs me time, property or Liberty and manage to get that passed into law, there’s only one way to make me comply; the threat of physical violence against my person.  Now as Eric pointed out, you and your fellow do-gooders would (probably) never deign to actually pick up a gun, point it at my head in an intersection and tell me “buckle up or you’re dead.”  But the results are the same; here’s why.

People that apparently agree with your line of reasoning (since you seemingly support seatbelt laws) want to make provisions for “the state” to “fine” me if I won’t comply with the Cloverian collective will. Then the Clovers’ surrogates (a.k.a. the police) may catch me being “out of compliance”, stop me to tell me I must comply and attempt to coerce me into signing a piece of paper to surrender the fruits of my labor to the state.  If I tell them to mind their own business and refuse to sign the paper, these state costumed ‘enforcers’ may attempt to extract me from my vehicle first by persuasion; “Sir, please step out of your vehicle.” Then threats; “Put your hands where I can see them and step out of the vehicle NOW. We can do this the hard way or the easy way; your choice.” And finally by physical force; Billy-club to the window glass, yanking me out the door by the arm, throwing me face first into the pavement, etc.

If I dare to continue resisting, which according to the thug scrum includes blocking blows to my head and body instinctively and involuntarily by the way, they will apply yet even violent force to subdue me. In all likelihood if I am even remotely successful in resisting this assault on my person they will resort to lethal force.  If I succeed in defending my person at that level and one or more of the state actors are injured or die as a result, they will send reinforcements until I am overwhelmed and they manage to kill me anyway.  If by some fluke I manage to survive all that, they will take my property from me and put me in a cage for a long time or perhaps even put me down like a rabid dog. Never mind that I didn’t initiate the force used or was within my Natural Rights to defend myself.

All of this could potentially occur because you and others like you believe I should be forced to put a nylon strap across my body versus my belief that I have the right to vehemently say “No.”  This is why Eric (and many of the rest of us) can state with such certainty that people who support seat-belt laws are aggressively violent by nature since they approve of forcing others, under pain of death, who have done them no harm, to comply with their will.  But since these people, of which ilk you have given us the impression you belong, do not have the intestinal fortitude to do “the wet work” themselves, they must rely on hired strong-men, mercenaries if you will, to do it for them.

Therefore if I wish to continue living, under this present system (which you allude to approving of) I must submit and obey to innumerable rules for myriad reasons that in no way relate to my having deprived you or any of my other neighbors of their lives, Liberty or property.  That Elisabeth is not Liberty; in our Constitutional Republic it is a violation of the supreme law of the land. This present “administrative” system is based on submission and obeisance in the face of superior physical force. It is tyranny.  Worse, I am compelled under duress to hand over a portion of the fruits of my labor to perpetuate this system, so it is nothing less than slavery. It matters not how well intentioned the proponents and architects of this are or if the chains and shackles are said to be “for your own good.” You have indeed given the impression based on the posts you’ve written so far, that you support this system. So you can rationalize efforts to thwart “pre-crime”, speak euphemistically about “safety” and try to justify forcing me to minimize “our” ‘shared risk’ under this brand of tyranny; but I assure that a turd with custom paint, chrome trim and tassels yet remains a turd…to its core.

With respect to seatbelts: I prefer to wear one, others here do not. That’s none of my business, nor is it any of yours.  I engage in what could be considered a far more dangerous activity than driving a car without a seatbelt: I ride a motorcycle.   Since I am decades beyond my first six months of riding, there is an 80% chance that if I am involved in an accident, it will be the fault of another driver not mine. If that were to happen, then the party that injured me should be responsible and provide restitution to the extent that I am injured and my property is damaged.  But following your apparent line of reasoning regarding shared risks and “who will pay” if I am injured, then you could probably rationalize outlawing motorcycles altogether for the good of the collective. I mean after all the other driver *might* not be insured or otherwise financially able to make restitution; so you’d feel obliged to come to my aid with other people’s money I take it.

If I read you correctly, I would actually be the one at fault for choosing to engage in what you consider to be a dangerous activity in the first place.  Therefore I must be stopped before the under-employed, uninsured moron texting his girlfriend potentially rear-ends me at the hypothetical stop light thereby imposing the cost of my medical care on my fellow citizens.  Followed to its logical conclusion, your path would eventually prohibit hang gliding, spelunking, sky diving, snow boarding, deep sea fishing, high fructose corn syrup, alcohol, hair dryers and five gallon buckets just as a start.  After all, if it will save one life…or even if it will cut down on the financial burden imposed on “society” (since the most expensive “healthcare” is that which is free), then it would be worth it. Right?  Please, please, please, Elisabeth, I implore you to read Bastiat’s essay on that which is seen and that which is unseen.

I will even go so far as to presume that you are a staunch proponent of “democracy” or rule by popular consent (a.k.a. majority rule). Your posts thus far lead me to believe that the “collective” is more important to you than any one individual; although you do seem to confuse voluntary associations with forced collectivism. Remember, the collective cannot exist without the individuals that comprise it: You can have individuals and no collective, but you cannot have a collective without the individuals.  So ultimately all consent or dissidence comes from individuals.  Just because a group of individuals gets together and agrees to take action in cooperation with each other, that alone does not make their actions morally or ethically right. They may decree that what they are doing as a group is ‘legal’ to justify to the unenlightened doing that which is fundamentally wrong.  So “democracy” in practice is nothing more than a euphemism for mob rule, which is the worst form of tyranny.  Democracy has been best defined as two wolves and one sheep deciding on the dinner menu.

And it doesn’t matter if the wolves don’t want to be seen with sheep’s blood on their grubby little paws and hire hyenas to do their dirty work for a share of the carcass; the sheep ends up just as dead in end. People who espouse preemptive limitations on our Liberty and “pre-crime” measures are those very wolves.  The police and other bureaucratic functionaries are the hyenas.  This is why many if not most of the wolves and hyenas in our society don’t want the sheep to keep and bear arms; it means less mutton on the menu, less revenue from wool and more danger for the predators when they’re “doing business.”

This fundamental right to self defense, and by extension the right to possess the means to do so, also provides us with the ability to NOT just submit and obey when wrongly assaulted by state actors. This is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, which the Indiana state legislature recently upheld. That led to a great deal of moaning and gnashing of teeth by the tax-feeder class, as you may be aware. You see my dear Elisabeth, the Second Amendment is the final check and balance in this system of government. It is in place not just so we can defend ourselves in the absence of the “authorities” (since they are seldom around when you actually need them anyway); but so we would have the means to defend ourselves from the “authorities” which will keep them in awe of an armed populace.  These are apparently the very reasons Cloverius Americanus seems to despise “the right.”

In conclusion Elisabeth, I pray thee give us more insight into your worldview by answering two simple questions honestly for me. From where do you derive your livelihood? And, what is your position on private firearms ownership?

Share Button

49 COMMENTS

  1. I think Elisabeth spelled out the reason America has failed quite well. She would support the Non Aggression Principle in regards to alcohol – if the stakes werenIt so high.
    This lack of fidelity – this folding of our hand when the stakes get too high – is the culprit of our toxic plague cultue that has nearly destroyed the very concept of freedom and self ownership worldwide.
    Adhering to NAP means ending colonialism through state force was a terrible tragedy.
    Ending slavery through conscriptions brought something much worse.
    Turning half the world into national parks. Taxing income. Giving minorities and women a vote via the barrel of a gun.Interfering in european wars. Going to the moon.Building the internet with stolen property. Eradicating poverty. Providing retirement and education. Curing diseases with conscripted health care. Purging 100% of the native nomadic peoples these were all terrible things because they fooled people into thinking state force is beneficial and efficient.
    Its all been a con and the first step is to look at it all as horrible tragedy. Better to start all over again with nothing like the days of the 1500s.
    The naked Arawaks lived much closer to NAP because of their limited range technology than we ever have.
    Its ludicrous and disheartening to read that abortion is something to be remedied through mass action and committees of experts.
    The 8.1 million people of Virginia arenIt going to come to a resolution to stop the Roe V. Wade death clock from ticking. %% miilion fetus have beengiven an early eviction. Building a baby trading floor. Many peaceful mitigations are possible.
    Experts who decree what life is. Who keep a concept like murder as a valid word which means whatever people with guns say it means. Hell no.
    Cats understand NAP. You never see them in a herd. They never worry about being in compliance with other cats. Each litter minds its own. Marks and defends its territory. If a clover human touches their wild chidren. They kill it right on the spot. Even upon domestication they remain one generation away from going feral.
    To be free you have to risk it all and walk away with nothing if you lose. Having freedom has to be the object of your game and the meaning of your life. What is more valuable than liberty?

    • Dear Tor,

      I think Elisabeth spelled out the reason America has failed quite well. She would support the Non Aggression Principle in regards to alcohol – if the stakes werenIt so high.
      This lack of fidelity – this folding of our hand when the stakes get too high – is the culprit of our toxic plague cultue that has nearly destroyed the very concept of freedom and self ownership worldwide.

      You just threw down the trump card.

      Quod erat demonstrandum.

  2. Elisabeth wrote – “How do you reconcile that statement with the fact Canada spends so much less on health care than the US, yet their average life expectancy is longer? That doesn’t seem “most expensive” to me.”

    I’m not trying to be funny here, but perhaps Canadians in general spend less time at the doctor and take fewer prescription drugs than Americans do overall. There are multiple reasons that Canadians may enjoy longer life spans than people in the U.S. do (if they actually do and it’s not propaganda to convince us that we need a system like theirs). Diet, exercise, exposure to sunlight, stress, pollution, accident rates, suicide rates, murder, hygiene and demographics all play a part in average national life expectancies. Actual medical procedures and treatment only play a small part. Cleanliness, education and proper nutrition will significantly impact health and the need for medical care as I’m sure you realize. Part of the reason Canadian medical costs may be lower, is rationing; as in “We’re sorry Elisabeth, we don’t consider that procedure essential and it isn’t covered.” In one case I read about the Leukemia patient was told by Canadian doctors in 2007 that he couldn’t have a bone marrow transplant. His family and doctor made enough appeals to the Canadian government they allowed him to come the U.S. for treatment, at taxpayer expense of course. He’s cancer free now. Based on the bureaucracy’s first decision, he’d be dead now.

    Canada doesn’t have the wide availability of technology U.S. hospitals enjoy. Part of that is the fact that Canada has roughly 1/10 the tax base the U.S. government can extort from. You’re probably aware that high tech medical equipment requires a substantial capital outlay. So the Canadian healthcare system “partners” with U.S. hospitals to provide facilities that they can’t afford to build. In 2008 the Detroit Medical Center stated that 300 of the 400 foreign patients they cared for were from Canada. This “partnership” is apparently pretty lucrative for these border hospitals (although the hospital administration at DMC declined to say how lucrative). If the equipment to perform bariatric procedures to reduce obesity (one of the services the Ontario Ministry of Healthcare pays 13 different U.S. hospitals to do) requires a massive expenditure per facility, they can “cut costs” by farming out the work; ‘Look ma’ our healthcare’s cheaper, cuz we can use the wealthy neighbor’s stuff down south.’

    And why is our healthcare so expensive in the U.S.? True, capital outlay is part of it. Doctors do draw high salaries and malpractice insurers charge exorbitant premiums as well. But there’s another issue: The FSA (The Free-Shit Army) puts a heavy burden on the system already. One case my wife handled before she left healthcare involved a young man sitting on his front porch in the heart of Richmond when someone did a “drive-by” and blew part of his leg off. The older E.R. doctor wanted to stump it off at the knee and send him home. But the younger doctor, being very generous with other people’s money, decided they could “save the leg”. Now mind you this indigent young man had a substantial sum of cash on him (several thousand dollars) which the hospital secured for him, but couldn’t touch it to cover his bill and returned to him.

    He spent several days in a private room hitting the morphine pump constantly. His friends came by often, they closed the door and the room smelled “funny” after they left. Now I appreciate the fact that he was most likely an entrepreneur delivering a popular product to his friends and neighbors tax free. But one of the hazards of his “business” is you sometimes get shot. Now in a normal business, on the job injuries are taken care of as a cost of doing business. But the hospital did not receive one thin dime from him. The following year the nursing staff covered his bill with 0% raises. Elisabeth, the healthcare he received was only “free” to him; the very real costs were picked up by my wife, her coworkers and the rest of us.

    Similar scenarios to this play out every day all over the U.S. Oh, it’s not always drive-by shootings, stabbings or gangland violence. Whether it’s the 62 year old chain smoker with emphysema or the 19 year old crack head that’s gone into labor or the welfare mom with a sick kid, Americans know they can walk into any E.R. in this nation and get “free” healthcare and they do. I used to have “Cadillac” major medical coverage at a prior job that covered Emergency Room visits 100%. Then some of my fellow employees figured out that they could drag their kids to the emergency room every time they got a snotty nose and it was “free.” Within two years of this trend starting (and we were warned about it) the company put us on a PPO / HMO plan, our premiums went up and everything required a co-pay and the out-of-pocket expenses went up. All because people who held good paying jobs enlisted in the FSA to save themselves a few bucks in the short term, not realizing nor caring about the damage they were doing in the long run.

    Since the average wait in Canada after your GP refers you to a specialist is reportedly 19 weeks, perhaps a lot of Canadians give up, go home and don’t cost the system another dime at that point. Based on what I have personally been told by healthcare workers (including three different doctors and more than a few nurses) avoiding doctors and hospitals, unless absolutely necessary, could tremendously increase one’s life expectancy. As I was leaving from my last visit to the clinic where our family doctor practices, he looked me in the eye and said “If you want to get sick, come here.” I had an 88 year old retired physician tell me point blank “Stay away from doctors, they will kill you.” She was quite serious too. Perhaps the Canadian healthcare model works so well because it’s a pain in the keister and most people stay home unless they’re dying. Then the ones that really need immediate and advanced care go to Michigan. I don’t know.

    But rest assured the “freer” healthcare gets here in the states, the more it will cost productive folks like you and me in taxes. Quality and availability of care will go down (ever been to a V.A. hospital?) and waiting times will go up. Maybe we’ll be able to go down to Mexico for medical care when that happens.

  3. Great post Boothe. We can all be proud of the great posts we compose like this one. Nice work everyone let’s all keep up the good work of spreading the word of individualisist thought by belonging to this site. Congrats Eric et.al.

  4. Elisabeth,

    Thank you for your measured and cool responses; we can debate like adults. It’s refreshingly different than Clover debates which devolve to straw men, ad absurdum, evasion and name-calling.

    Let’s get back to the core of the argument here.

    It is the battle between malum in se–that which is “bad in itself”, or a violation of Natural Law expressed in common law terms…and malum prohibitum–that which is “bad because it’s prohibited” or as I like to transliterate–“bad because we said so“. The latter is administrative law, comprising 99.9% of the “laws” we live under.

    Malum in se is obvious, and is the origin of the concept “ignorance of the law is no excuse”; Natural Law is self-evident except to the most scrupulous of academic obfuscators. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Assault is wrong. Fraud is wrong.

    Administrative law is arbitrary; and reaches its most evil when it is injunctive–when it’s a prior constraint. We’ve discussed it in terms of drunk driving, which is laden with so much propaganda it’s difficult to imagine a world without drunk driving laws. Seatbelts are a much better example.

    I choose to wear a seatbelt. If I did not, and I were injured as a result, whose fault is that? Who bears the costs?

    If the collective via the State bears those costs, indeed you have a say in my choice.

    If I alone bear the cost, it’s nobody’s business but mine whether to wear a seatbelt.

    In a collectivist system, in other words, we all become each others’ keepers–and this is a crucial point. For you see, once the principle is established there is no limit to what becomes everyone’s business. Bloomberg the Schmuck has banned large soft drinks and excess salt in New York–because the collective bears the medical costs. Seatbelt laws. Helmet laws. Airbag laws. Now, cars are becoming uglier because the EU decided the hood must cushion the impact of the fool who walked out in front of a moving car.

    Everyone hates at least one of these restrictions, and for each objection there’s a nanny neighbor who loves the restriction because it will “save one life”–but in fact, it will save them money.

    And in this way, collectivism is the most un-civilizing influence on earth, because by making everyone everyone else’s keeper it invites discord, invective, envy, and busy-body-ism.

    And as Eric and others point out, enforcement of malum prohibitum eventually leads to gross absurdities and injustices like men being beaten, caged, or killed for not wearing a seatbelt.

    Despite your counter-argument “pick your battles”, what if I don’t want to? What if I’m tired of the thousands of tiny, irritating strictures on my freedom, and one day I say “ENOUGH!” Would you have the strength of your convictions to say “You WILL wear the seatbelt”–and force me at gunpoint to do so?

    Because if you don’t the principle you uphold in supporting administrative laws is in question.

  5. Elisabeth, I’m very pleased that your business is not based on the tax system. If Google is more of a threat to you than the gun-vernment, I surmise that your business involves intellectual property. I must hasten to say that in all likelihood Google is as deeply in bed with the gun-vernment as Facebook, MySpace, Apple and AT&T also are. If a corporation gets big and wealthy enough to have amassed a healthy customer information database, they will attract the attention of the PTB. And they *will* play ball with them too, if they know what’s good for them. In exchange for providing private information about their customers, the big-boys’ markets are protected. It’s called fascism and I’m pretty sure you are already aware it’s the de facto system in the U.S. these days. It makes doing legitimate business a bit more challenging doesn’t it? So much for equal protection under the law…

    • It’s creepier than that with Google, Boothe.

      As I dig into it, the not-so-invisible hand of the shadow government pops out.

      Guess who provided a good deal of initial funding? Yeah, that would be In-Q-Tel, captive of the CIA…not to mention its conspicuous links to the NSA.

      Others–prominently including Facebook–raise my suspicions too.

  6. “perhaps your business relies on the tax system as we know it; tax preparer, accountant, tax lawyer perhaps?”

    I expect you’ll be pleased to know that the answer is no on all of those.

    “What if the government decided to do something that destroyed your business? ”

    You can bet your britches that if I thought some level of government was treating me inequitably I’d be hollering about it.

    But as a practical matter my business is far more likely to suffer harm caused by Google than the gov’t. There’s no accountability there whatsoever, and that concerns me at least as much as constitutional issues concern you.

    “So we get the bill of rights in one place and the weasel words in the other.”

    Now we’re getting somewhere that I can understand.

    • Elisabeth,

      Any level of government that violates a person’s right is by definition treating that person inequitably. The question now is merely one of degree.

      I reject the democratic (small “d”) premise that the collective is entitled to impose its will on the individual, absent the individual having caused harm or clearly intending/threatening harm to some other person or persons. That is the basis of common law and common law was once the basis of American law, before American law became tyrannical.

      Let me put this in everyday terms, using the issue of “drunk” driving.

      The democratic collective, as expressed through its machinery of government, has decreed – arbitrarily – that any person who is found to have a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher is presumptively “drunk” under the law (in fact, many states have a lower legal threshold of .06 that while not legally presumptive, is still sufficient cause to arrest a person for “drunk” driving).

      However, it’s a fact that individuals process alcohol differently. Some will manifest obvious signs of impairment after as a little as a single drink or two. Others show no meaningful impairment after consuming an equivalent (or even greater) amount of alcohol. Also, individuals vary greatly in terms of their baseline abilities. A person who is an excellent driver, with good physical reflexes, vision, sense of spatial relationships, etc. starts out at a much higher level than a person who is a marginally skilled driver, with average (or poor) reflexes, vision, etc. The excellent driver, even with a few drinks in him, may still be in more control of his car – less likely to cause an accident – than the sober but marginally competent driver.

      Ergo:

      Go after the people who show obvious signs of impairment/incompetence behind the wheel – for whatever reason. Whether a person is wandering across the double yellow because they’ve had too much to drink – or because they’re senescent or incompetent. They’re equally dangerous.

      But if a person’s actual driving hasn’t provided cause to suspect they are not capable of safely handling their car, then leave them alone. If a person is impaired, this will become obvious to any cop following that driver. Then pull him over. And use the fact of his erratic driving as the primary evidence of impairment.

      And if the person is not driving erratically or recklessly, then there’s no justification for pulling him over. The fact that he isn’t driving erratically tells us a helluva lot more than what his BAC level is (or isn’t) insofar as his ability to safely control his vehicle.

      And: No treating all drivers as presumptively drunk – forcing them to stop and submit to a “sobriety check” justified by the claim that a hypothetical “someone” (anyone) might be drunk. Only stop those who have, by their actions, given reason to suspect they may be impaired for some reason. Everyone else is free to go about their business without being randomly stopped (and interrogated).

      That’s the way to do it – in a free society.

      But we do not live in a free society.

      We live in a police state run by millions of tyrants rather than just one – that is, in a democracy.

      • Eric,

        I would agree with your reasoning about alcohol if the stakes weren’t so high when something goes wrong.

        More people than any of us could easily count have been killed by drunk drivers, and there is no possible way to make restitution for that. No possible way. This is not a context where errors can be be corrected by restitution and an apology.

        Legal alcohol limits don’t restrict where you can drive, when, or with whom. They constrain you from driving with alcohol in your system.

        .08 is indeed an arbitrary dividing line, I’ll agree with you about that, but it doesn’t follow that no line should be drawn.

        Toll booths are a lot bigger impediment to my driving freedom than any check stops I’ve ever encountered (which I could count on one hand and have fingers left over).

        • Elisabeth,

          I agree that toll booths are a nuisnace and inefficient. There are (IMO) better ways (more efficient/less costly) to pay for a road than using toll boths and toll collectors.

          I will need more time to adress the other points you made.

          • Agreed, I doubted Elisabeth was a true Clover early on because she seemed articulate, intelligent, polite and compassionate. I gave her the benefit of the doubt for not having read the lengthy interchanges we’ve had with Gil and Clover in the past. That’s why I took the time to engage her. She sure has livened things up, that’s for sure! 😀

      • Dear Eric,

        The drunk driving laws are driven by the insurance co. You non-clovers would like the companys to run the USA.
        The insurance co’s are. Up until about 20 years ago a drunk driver would have the Police call a taxi to take him home. But the insurance co. were losing lots of money paying the bills for the drunk drivers.

        So the insurance co got the laws past to have drunk drivers arrested on the spot and taken to jail.

        The gov is just hired guns for the insurance co,s.

        WE have one big company town called United Safety Assocation.

        • Yup – you’re right. We have cartel capitalism – corporatism. Fascism, really. The key to getting out from under is to get people to reject the collectivist (group) premises – and the idea that it’s ok to deal with people using force (excepting self-defense).

          • Eric,
            This is not Fascism. It is not collectivisum. The only “collectivist” the insurance is worried about is collecting my money. It is “Greed”, plain and simple. The insurance co. are greedy.

            The insurance co use the gov thugs as their knee breakers.

            Until the shareholders stop supporting the insurance co’s this will continue.

            • Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power. Isn’t that what we have? The insurance companies using government force to compel people to buy insurance; the forced “spreading out” of risk – and its corollary, the use of force to impose prior restraint in the name of risk reduction.

              Many people make the error of equating fascism with Nazism – and racialism. Bear in mind that Mussolini – who articulated fascism long before Hitler ever came to power – was not a racialist.

          • Eric

            Fascist are “hostile to the power of money” Fascist use the gov control of the companys to push their power. Mussoilli
            called his verson upsidedown capitilism
            because he was in charge of the companys.

            Nazism is a form of socializm.

            The insurance co are captilist that own the USA, lock, stock and gov, and love the power of money. That is why we see pic’s of the gov workers in hot tubs in Vegas. The insurance co’s send their bought gov workers to Vegas to see the hookers.

            Rick

            • That’s just not true, Rick.

              Have you read up on the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany? It was heavily backed by major industrialists, such as Thyssen and Krupp. The major arms cartels salivated at the government money that came with rearmament and a “strong military.”

              Sound familiar?

              Fascism is about the merger of state power and corporate power. The legal fiction of private ownership remains, but only for the largest cartels – who work hand-in-glove with the state.

    • Treating you inequitably… but that’s how government works. It’s a political body with the monopoly on legal violence. It does not concern itself with what is equitable. They concern themselves with who someone is, who they know. “We don’t want nobody nobody sent” is the classic line.

      Usually business regulation is like the lead in toys law. Big toy companies that made their product in China had a problem with lead. So the congress passes a regulation requiring expensive third party testing. (also effectively bans second hand toy sales too) Testing the small makers of toys can’t afford. Then congress lets the big companies who had the problem in the first place self-test while others still have to do third party testing. That’s how it works.

      Since it would upset you to be treated poorly, why favor the state’s intrusions upon others when it is something you think is a good idea? By favoring it when you think it’s a good idea then at some point the state is going to do something to you which you’ll find to be a bad idea. At that point how can you complain when you were for other interferences that were similar in principle?

      • Who was it who characterized government as…
        “A criminal gang, writ large”

        Was that Rothbard?

        The parallels are not just remarkable, they’re identical. As I read more and more history–I’m on “World Lit Only By Fire”–I see the connections better every day.

        What started as small fiefdoms ruled by rough-handed thugs who appointed themselves “lords”, evolved to royalty, culminated briefly in Papism, devolved again to divine right…

        …and today remains every bit as much a religion as middle-ages Catholicism and pope-worship.

        They’ve had to clean up their acts a bit–wouldn’t do to have the commoners familiar with their bestial acts, so now they keep them confined to places like Bohemian Grove…and smile and wave at the cameras the rest of the time, thumping their bibles and weeping on cue.

        But their fangs are showing again of late.

        • Yes methyl, it was Mr. Rothbard at his finest:

          “For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang.”

          So true.

  7. Thank you for reading and responding Elisabeth. It took quite a while to compose and I did so because I perceived that you are intelligent and reasonable from what you’ve written. I’ll address a few of your points, but it’s late, I’m tired and I’ll get back to you on some of the others later.

    With respect to verbally spanking the Gil/Clover troll team: I presented my case(s) and they responded with non sequiturs, circular logic and often attempted to bait me into making inflammatory statements. They have both endeavored to evoke an emotional response from me and others on more than one occasion. In response to their literary churning and non-responses (much like the crap you get back from the IRS when you ask specific questions about the tax code) I have berated, insulted and ridiculed these buffoons, because turnabout is fair play and I call ‘em like I see ‘em. It does not reflect on the validity of my original arguments.

    I’m glad to hear you have experience with firearms. I’m sorry to hear that you don’t see them as a means of self defense. In 1987 a serial rapist broke into my rural Virginia home. My (now ex) wife shot him. She doesn’t share your or your neighbors’ sentiments. May you never have your mind changed on the subject in that manner. I hope none of us live to see the tree of Liberty fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But should it happen, I would much prefer to be armed and die with dignity than to be marched off to starve in a labor camp or shot in the back of the head over a ditch. The German people in the 1930’s were in denial about their government too. That didn’t change the outcome after the Nazi gun control act of 1938 passed. As an aside, major portions of that law were translated into English and passed into federal law as the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. Look it up if you don’t believe me. You can find a lot of interesting facts about civilian disarmament at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO.org). They have more than a little experience with persecution and genocide; it’s easier for the predators when the sheep are disarmed.

    On the issue of federal taxes you need to do a little more homework (or perhaps your business relies on the tax system as we know it; tax preparer, accountant, tax lawyer perhaps?). Those are all services that people want, but only because the fruits of their labor are extracted from them under pain of death if they resist; it’s not a function of the free market by any stretch. Our original Republic (not a democracy, because as Madison pointed out, democracy’s death is as violent as its life is short) was to be funded through imposts, excises, duties and tariffs; all of which are largely avoidable by simply not buying the products or imports they are imposed on. This was putting Jefferson’s belief, that making someone pay taxes for things they found reprehensible to be the worst thing you could do to them, into practice. Abraham Lincoln corrected that in 1862 with the income tax and greenbacks (worthless paper money). It seems they go hand in glove.

    Direct taxes or “capitations” were to be apportioned by population. In other words, should the need arise to lay and collect direct taxes the federales would go to the state legislatures and say “You have a population of 1 million people, you owe us a dollar a head toward the war debt.” It was up to the states to decide how to collect those million dollars. It was declared un-Constitutional by the US Supreme Court in the 1870’s and re-implemented in pretty much its current form in 1913, coincidental I’m sure, to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Yeah. Right. The present income tax is nothing more than a collection method for the Federal Reserve banks and their private owners to get a good portion of their funny money back out of circulation each year to forestall hyper-inflation. But believe what you like.

    Oh, and I do pick my battles carefully. That’s why I’m still here. It doesn’t change the actual way the system works or the truth of the matter. You can’t call our country “free” or “The Land of Liberty” when men with guns (much like the Redcoats) can order their employers (us) around, beat, pepper spray, tase, shackle, detain, invade our homes, take our property and even shoot us with impunity for the slightest (or even no) infractions and have their superiors cover for them. Sorry, it goes on every day in this country. It happens to the innocent altogether too often simply because the “drug task force” or “swat team” gets the targeted address wrong! Or a vehicle search turns up a fair sum of money, the driver shows the cop the eBay listing for the car he’s going to pick up and the cop takes his money because it “might” be used to buy drugs (that actually happened in Tennessee recently).

    As Will Grigg points out, there is no problem so bad or situation so tragic that the police can’t make it worse. When they came to investigate the incident with the rapist my wife shot, the Virginia State Police investigator had no way to remove the slug from the door frame. I lent him a large pair of hemostats I use for removing jewelry items from pickling solution. He immediately started examining them to see if they were burnt on the ends from use as a “roach clip.” I called him on it and he laughed nervously about the fact he was more concerned about whether or not I was using a common weed than he was about the “evidence” from the attempted rape and subsequent shooting. So sometimes, in an “administrative” legal system like ours, you don’t have to do anything wrong to “pick the battle”, it comes to you. That’s why this is supposed to be a Republican system of government bound down with the chains of the Constitution based on the principles spelled out in the Declaration of Independence; it has broken its chains. If you can’t see that, M’lady, it is because you don’t want to. More later.

  8. As for how I make my living, I own my own business (which I started about ten years ago) and have others on my payroll. My business pays the bills because we provide services that other people want. Back in the nineties I collected unemployment for about two or three months (don’t remember exactly), but that was temporary and I have returned a lot to the system since then. To date, the biggest check I’ve written for income tax was six figures. So call me whatever names you want but “parasite” better not be one of them.

    As for private firearms ownership, my father made sure I learned how to shoot when I was a young girl. Until a few months ago my dad’s rifles sat in the closet (in a locked cabinet) about eight feet from where I’m sitting as I type this. Those guns are now at my brother’s house because he wanted them for sentimental reasons.

    The last time any of our guns was used was to shoot a skunk that was killing our chickens. The time before that was also a skunk. I live in a rural area and gun ownership is common around here but no one I know thinks of them as a means of self-defense, they are tools for four-legged critter control.

    “(since the most expensive “healthcare” is that which is free)”

    How do you reconcile that statement with the fact Canada spends so much less on health care than the US, yet their average life expectancy is longer? That doesn’t seem “most expensive” to me.

    “Worse, I am compelled under duress to hand over a portion of the fruits of my labor to perpetuate this system, so it is nothing less than slavery. ”

    If you got zero value from the system, I’d agree with that. But I doubt you could say that.

    I consider it to be dishonest demagoguery to use hyped-up verbiage like “slavery” when Section 8 of the Constitution says what it does (see below).

    “When reasoning and logic do not work, verbal spanking is in order. ”

    No, you just strengthen the impression that your own logic is weak. “When your argument is shaky, raise your voice.”

    “Democracy has been best defined as two wolves and one sheep deciding on the dinner menu.”

    “Best” definition according to whom?

    Here’s a quote about democracy from Winston Churchill:

    “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
    British politician (1874 – 1965) ”

    “And finally by physical force; Billy-club to the window glass, yanking me out the door by the arm, throwing me face first into the pavement, etc.”

    Have you ever heard the saying, “Choose your battles wisely?”

    There’s lots of things I disagree with in this world but I’d prefer to take on issues whose seriousness is actually in proportion to what it might cost me to take a stand.

    Since you toss around words like “constitutional republic” and “slavery” I’m curious what you think about Section 8 of the Constitution:

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    Taxes collected and used for the general welfare are just as constitutional as gun ownership, y’know.

    • Let me be the first to point out that you didn’t answer either question.

      Saying “I own a business” is the same as saying “I have a job” as far as the question “how do you derive your income” is concerned. We still don’t know what it is that you do.

      Also, “my dad taught me to shoot and nobody around me thinks guns are for self-defense” still doesn’t reveal much about your position on private firearms ownership.

      • Did you miss the fact that I have owned guns? That might, just might, say something about my position on private firearms ownership.

        Re my living … I could say anything but you’d have no way to check it so no matter what I said you’d have to make the choice whether to believe it or not. It’s your call whether to believe what I’ve already said, or not.

        • No it doesn’t say much at all. Only that you have some. Nothing regarding regulation or prohibition of certain classes.

          I work in a segment of advertising. We know what many others here do. They’ve spoken about their professions at enough length that they’d have to be putting up a lot of effort to maintain the lie if they were lying about it. This is highly unlikely. So I think you would be the first to lie about your work here, were you to decide to do so.

          • If you think I’m going to say enough to reveal my identity in a context where I get labelled “chickenshit” for the first question I ever ask, you’ve got another think coming.

            YOU are the clover here if you expect more details than what I’ve already said about my livelihood.

        • Why is owning guns evidence of anything? I find that people all too often base their idea of what freedoms people should have based on their personal likes and dislikes. The leap out of that is to advocate for people to be able to do things one does not approve of.

        • Hi Elisabeth,

          I also live in a rural area and I was surprised by your comment that in your area people look upon guns chiefly as a tool for “varmint control.” In my area, guns are also held in esteem as a tool essential for self (and home) defense. A very high percentage of the people here have CC permits – precisely because they do not wish to find themselves without the means of self-defense against two-legged varmints.

          A question: Do you believe a person has the right to possess a gun for self-defense and the right to use that gun for self-defense if necessary?

          Do you believe there ought to be any restrictions placed on firearms ownership (and possession, including on his person, out in public) by an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime involving violence?

          (Ok, that’s more than one question… but hopefully, you’ll be willing to answer them!)

          • “:A question: Do you believe a person has the right to possess a gun for self-defense and the right to use that gun for self-defense if necessary?”

            Yes.

            “Do you believe there ought to be any restrictions placed on firearms ownership (and possession, including on his person, out in public) by an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime involving violence?”

            Also yes.

          • Harry,

            I chose my wording carefully.

            Around here no one I know lives in the kind of fear that expects we’d have to defend ourselves against 2-legged critters.

            Some people out in the country own Big Scary Dogs, but a lot of people also leave their houses and cars unlocked. It’s a mixed bag.

          • Elisabeth,
            I have no idea where you live but I am incredibly jealous of you being able to live in a place where there are no robberies, rapes, home invasions at all and police brutality does not does not exist at any level.
            i too often leave my car unlocked but that is because it is not worth stealing and my house may be unlocked during the day but that is because I am armed.

            I have lived in rural areas of Penntucky (contract job), they have a saying about how to deal with those types of issues, the 3 S’s, shotgun, shovel and shutup. They did not share your view of firearms as well. 90% of the cars in that plant had firearms in them, and it wasn’t to shoot “4 legged varmints.”

            From my experience there is no place truly safe from “two-legged critters”, only areas with varying degrees of infestation.

            I am not fearful because I decide to be prepared to defend myself.
            It’s from being prepared and vigilant that diminishes fear, otherwise it might jsut be false security due to ignorance of a person’s surroundings.

          • @harry p.

            “I have no idea where you live but I am incredibly jealous of you being able to live in a place where there are no robberies, rapes, home invasions at all and police brutality does not does not exist at any level.”

            I was thinking the exact same thing.

            Sounds like it’s right near here:

    • What if the government decided to do something that destroyed your business? Because either through the mechanisms of democracy the majority decided that was best or say your competition successfully lobbied for a law that knocked you out of the game and thus they got the market share you once had?

      Would you just shrug and accept that’s just the way it goes, accepting of the state’s power?

      As to section 8 and taxation powers, that’s a very long discussion that first involves breaking down perceptions and facts. Separating the two. Then getting into court cases and so in. In the end I’ve ended up siding with those who believe the federal income tax is fraud. Combined with real estate taxation the result is effectively little different from serfdom. Something the founders were bright enough to recognize. The Hamiltonians wanted such powers, such conditions, the Jeffersonians did not want it. So we get the bill of rights in one place and the weasel words in the other.

  9. Great post, Boothe. Kudos.

    As an aside, there is a follow-up to “Democracy has been best defined as two wolves and one sheep deciding on the dinner menu”: Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the results of the vote.

LEAVE A REPLY