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?