Offending Activists

20
802
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Larken Rose

Time to be a total party-pooper, and annoy and offend lots of people who think they are fighting for freedom. But there is a happy, hopeful ending to the video.

Share Button

20 COMMENTS

  1. An interesting thing I learned today:
    A farmer I know got pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. As he was sitting in the passenger seat of the cop car he noticed on the computer screen in the cop’s car a labyrinth of information about the farmer (more than you might suspect) but the surprising thing was, next to his name was his occupation (or his rape potential?)
    Next to his name it said, farm.
    He asked the cop, why does it say that?
    The cop would not answer.

    So later on the farmer asked this other cop “friend” he knew, why it said that.
    The cop told him: that’s how they know if they should harass you and pursue you, to know if you could pay the fine, and if you couldn’t or wouldn’t pay the fine they could attach a lean onto your property.

    I’m sure a few of you could think of other reasons why his occupation as farmer would pop up on the cops computer screen might be of use to them.
    But I’ll leave it at that.

    Also, did you know ‘they’ intend to make it so if you sell vegetables or food of any kind from a farm you can’t have a dog or a cat within a mile of the crops or food?
    At minimum, this spells the end of the farm dog. And as if wild animals don’t count? Also, how far is the neighbors dog from your place?
    I heard lots of other scary stuff about gooberment regulations from my local farmer, but I won’t get into that except to say, the guy with the clipboard at the entrance to the farmers market taking notes creep’d me the F-out. I hope there’s a perfectly rational reason for that guy who I’ve been told is always there, but I have my doubts.
    So goes another day of life living in a police state. Where we know we’re free. HAHAHAHA!!!! Arg. … I’m not laughing. If you’re a thinking person, you shouldn’t be either.

    • Yup.

      It’s the gradual accumulation of the little things that, over a period years, transforms a country from a mostly reasonable place into a nightmare.

      You wake up one day, and it’s too late.

    • Interesting. I had a feeling the scope of info they were getting in their cars had expanded. Their behavior has changed towards me for the better. I don’t look any different or drive any differently. Even often drive the same car.. so the change has to be on their end even if it is just my numerical age.

    • It would be great fun for 25 of you guys to surround this guy by tightly encircling him with your bodies. Then, politely tell him that you want the clipboard…. Do this after he has had hours to do his note taking. With a large group, one or two could do the talking while several others gab the clipboard.
      Do not harm him, or threaten him in any way. Simply keep smiling broadly while you interact. Let your voices be like music and have someone record with cellphone.
      What will they charge you with?
      Once you get the clipboard and see what is on it you have the info. You need.

    • My thoughts are, if you kill the guy with the clipboard and burn the notes – they’ll run out of workers shortly.

      But I’m in a mood today.

      • Dear Lberns,

        I read The Most Dangerous Superstition only recently.

        Very valuable contribution to the literature of liberty!

        There is an important place for non-esoteric, non-academic works like these.

        Thomas Paine’s pamphlet “Common Sense” was one such work.

        They may actually be more influential than scholarly tomes, which as Ambrose Bierce once joked “The covers of this book are too far apart.”

    • Dear Dom,

      Larken Rose is great.

      What I like about his approach, is his Plain English strategy. He explodes the myths of governmental authority using plain language.

      Far from detracting from his credibility, it renders his pro-liberty arguments virtually unassailable.

      By expressing issues in concrete, down to earth terms, he makes it nearly impossible for statists to evade the logical implications by hiding in the ambiguity inherent in many higher level abstractions.

      Never introduce potential weasel words into a debate. Doing so, however inadvertently, provides advocates of government coercion the opportunity to use them as a smoke screen to confuse the issue once they realize they can’t win.

      I learned that the hard way many years ago. Since then I too have adopted the same Plain English strategy in my polemical writings.

      • By expressing issues in concrete, down to earth terms, he makes it nearly impossible for statists

        Statists try their damnedest to evade. Just read some of their comments. Larken likes to leave them so folks can get an idea just how obtuse these people think (much like Eric does with Clovers).

        • Dear lBerns,

          Right on.

          I have noticed an intriguing correlation over the years as I debated with “champions of democracy.”

          I noticed that it was not necessary to resort to esoteric language to defend natural rights and individual liberty, but that it was essential to do so to rationalize and disguise brute force coercion.

          For example, free marketeers can get away with straight talk. They can say “TANSTAAFL!”

          But Keynesian coercive redistributionists cannot. They must resort to weasel words such as “monetary policy” and “quantitative easing” as euphemisms for counterfeiting.

          • “…as I debated with “champions of democracy.””

            Ha. Sometimes I think that type of person is the blindest of them all.
            I’ve never owned a mule, but after dealing with that lot I think the stubbornness of a mule would be a piece of cake.
            The so-called ‘champions of democracy’ see liberty as if it were a snake and see the yoke on their necks as a thing of pride.
            They make me sick. … I soo see why Don drinks.

          • Dear 5to1,

            Yeah. pretty funny, I know!

            What really burns my ass is how these “champions of democracy” have brainwashed an entire generation of Western wannabe Chinese “intellechewals” into repeating the failed democratic experiment in my native China.

            Having to listen to them and their Western handlers prattle on about how desperately China needs “freedom, human rights, AND DEMOCRACY” makes me sick.

            Isn’t it bad enough that Western intellechewals of the Communist persuasion already wreaked havoc on China once?

            Now Western intellechewals of the liberal democratic persuasion want to visit a second disaster on poor China?

      • Morning, Bevin!

        Language, of course, is everything. It sets the terms of the debate.

        Statists are adepts at the corruption of language – that is, the corruption of concepts.

        They never say: We support taking the property of Smith in order to give it to Jones. No, never. Instead, they say: We support the fairness inherent in a progressive system.

        The worst part, though, is that only the small minority of “party intellectuals” are consciously aware of this. The masses actually believe in the “fairness inherent in a progressive system” – even though they’ve never really stopped to parse out what that means, exactly – and come to honest terms with it.

        • Your last paragraph brings this to mind:

          “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”

          Of course, it’s not just the “progressives.” I would include the “They hate us fer r freedums” flag waving saber rattlers who are duped by a small minority of “party intellectuals” as well.

        • Dear Eric,

          “Instead, they say: We support the fairness inherent in a progressive system.”

          LOL!

          Ain’t that the truth.

          The funny thing is, if we hardcore libertarians wanted to play their game, we would probably be better at it than them.

          I’ve often thought that if I had no conscience, I could have been a speech writer for a Demopublican Party intellectual midget.

          Reminds me of the Mel Gibson movie “Payback.”

          Porter: [voiceover] Crooked cops. Do they come any other way? If I’d been just a little dumber, I could have joined the force myself.

LEAVE A REPLY