Dancing With Clovers

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kevin Costner danced with wolves. It is my fate – and yours – to drive with Clovers. They are everywhere – and increasingly unavoidable. Like a virulent bacillus, ineptitude and passive aggressive behavior  behind the wheel spreads across the land. It’s possible to escape Clovers – temporarily – by moving far, far away from their hives in urban suburban areas. But inevitably, they follow you – and before you can blink, you find yourself  surrounded and immersed . . . by “drivers” such as these:clover lead

* The 50 yard gap Clover –

Maintaining a safe following distance is good policy . . . when you’re actually moving. But when you’re barely crawling, leaving 50 yards of clearance between your car and the car ahead of you annoys (and needlessly delays) everyone behind you, especially when they’re trying to get to the turn lane Clover is probably blocking. Clover will inch forward at a pace perfectly timed to cause you to miss the signal and waste 5 minutes of your life waiting for the next cycle. This is the high point of Clover’s day, at least, before he gets to his cubicle at the DMV – where he can spend the remainder of the day torturing drivers in other ways.

* The Match Your Pace Clover –slow mo

Have you ever been driving along, cruise control set at 70, and had a Clover accelerate to catch up, then match your speed exactly – whether you speed up or slow down? Remora-like, Clover sticks right with you, either side-by-side or right on your tail. He won’t pass. He won’t take the hint. I’ve had Clovers of this type match my speed up to 90 MPH before finally breaking off. It may be Clover’s herd instinct – his desire to follow rather than lead – that accounts for this bizarre behavior. Whatever the underlying pathology, it’s as hard to break Clover of the habit as it is to get a Mississippi leg hound to stop once he gets going.

Best just to let him finish.

* Fast car, slow Clover –

Some say bodybuilding is pointless; big muscles, just for show. How about the Clover who buys a 300-plus horsepower car, then drives it within the performance envelope of an ’83 Aries K car? Creeps away from a just-turned green light not much faster than a bicycle rider can build speed?clover 3
Enters a curve posted 35 MPH and slows to 28? Resolutely refuses to either pass the car to his right – or fall back and move over to the right – so you can pass? The market is saturated with high-powered cars being driven very slowly.

Because Clovers are all about show – and have very little interest in go.

* The glacial epoch deceleration Clover –

This is the guy who is as much afraid of his brake pedal as he is of his accelerator pedal. He only applies both with extreme caution – and very gradually. For example: Approaching a red light, he will use the car’s momentum to slow down. This may save him gas – but it wastes everyone else’s time. The cars behind Clover  take as long as Clover to finally reach the light – and if any of them intended to turn off, slow-motion Clover will have assured they’ve missed the signal.slow clover

Meanwhile, he glides off – oblivious.

* Overcautious Clover –

We all know this Clover . . .  unfortunately. He’s the guy who drops his speed to 37 in a 55 zone at the first sight of a snowflake. Not snow.


Or, rain


Now, it is reasonable to adjust speed for conditions. But Clover adjusts (reduces) his speed for perceived conditions. For example, work zones – where there’s no one working. Clover will crawl through such zones, not because his eyes tell him there are men working, but because a sign says men are working – even when men are clearly not working, or even there at all.pilot car pic

This same subspecies of Clover also cannot – apparently – negotiate an actual work zone (with men actually working) unless a “pilot car” guides him through. Have you seen these? In place of a flag man at each end of a work zone, waving traffic past, there is now a “pilot car” (usually, a truck) that the entire conga line of cars must follow, tip-toeing at a Cloveritic  crawl through the work zone. Even if said “zone” is nothing more challenging than two lanes merging into one for a brief stretch. You can thank Clovers for this. They can’t deal with the Apollo 13-esque task of following a flagman’s instructions. It is too much to ask of them. And so, as good money drives out bad, those of us who can deal are no longer allowed to. Courtesy of Clover.

We get to wait behind him, instead.

Throw it in the Woods?

Spread it via Twitter: LibertarianCarG (they would not let me have “guy”).


We depend on you to keep the wheels turning.  If you value alternatives to the MSM, please support independent media. Our donate button is here.

For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079


  1. I have encountered a new one recently, having chosen a new route for my evening commute from work. It goes like this: I am in a double left turn lane waiting for the green arrow. When it turns green, cars from both turn lanes pull out into the intersection, only the left-most one has to suddenly stop because some moron on the cross street has pulled so far forward of their white stripe that the turn is impossible. Needless to say, the moron in question cannot reverse out of the way because other morons are hugging their rear bumper.

    This causes traffic to instantly back up through the intersection, and when the light turns now other traffic cannot proceed. Much horn blowing ensues. The ultimate culprit is normally a 40ish bottle blonde in a Chevy Suburban or Lexus version of the Land Cruiser.

  2. I will have to say one thing about coasting up to red-lights. I cannot believe how people waste gas, brake pads, and their car’s suspension by staying on the gas all the way up to a red light then slam on their brakes to stop. It is as if they can not wait to get to the light and full stop so they can get back to texting, applying make-up, adjusting sound system, etc… I definitely agree that coasting up should not be done in the far right lane due to right on red possibility, but all this other hurrying is extremely ridiculous/wasteful/stupid!!

  3. Clover’s twice as smart as us. Cause he’s a doublethinker!

    “Assimilate. Ubiquitious. This is a holocaust. The Powers That Be are dumbing us to death!” Scene from Detachment

    Amazing Doublethink Concept clip, from Detachment

    Detachment Fi1m

    Did you like Detachment the reporter asked Bryan Cranston. He answered, “I felt that Carl Lund, the writer of ‘Detachment,’ wrote a really beautiful, haunting script. And I didn’t feel that it was honored.” “I was upset with that. I really was. And so I didn’t see the movie.”

    “Tony Kaye is a very complicated… interesting fellow. I don’t believe that I’ll be working with him again. I just honor the writing. I really think that writing is the most important element there is. And if you don’t honor that – which I didn’t feel it was – then where are you?”

    Detachment Site

    Detachment Movie Script

    Another clip from detachment:

    What up Doctor Parker? [statist hypocrite authoritarian rant about meriKan yutes]

    Detachment scenes

  4. Eric,
    My BIGGEST pet Clover Peeve of late is with the HUGE wussies that will not pull out into an intersection to make a left turn when there is oncoming traffic – they will wait for a turn arrow before they will even think about passing the white stripe. Sometimes they will not go without the arrow even when there is NO oncoming traffic!! Gawd talk about “Nervous Nellies” afraid of their own shadows. Because of a recent revenue enhancement attempt perpetrated against me I have discovered this idiocy is encouraged via Defensive Driving Courses. I’m sure this is done for safety reasons and definitely NOT throughput reasons, because it has been discovered that idiot clovers which have pulled into the intersection will just sit there, panic, do nothing once their light has turned red, and get in the way of the new cross traffic. They think that they can not proceed because their light has turned red, which of course is not the case at all (once you are in the intersection you have the right of way, and no one is to proceed until you have cleared the intersection), and will attempt to back up out of the intersection!!! Talk about morons. Every now and then I attempt to educate these imbeciles by pulling around and ahead of them into the intersection, so that I will be able to left turn before them when oncoming traffic clears. Alas, they are much too dumb to understand the intricacies of what I am displaying to them, and simply get their panties in a wad because I got to go and they couldn’t/wouldn’t.

    • Ha! And I thought I was The Only One who saw that, Charlie.

      The other day a Clover topped them all off. The Clover driver had pulled far enough into the intersection that, once the traffic on the right in a left-turn lane had a green arrow, the whole bunch of them started making the corner going through the gap between my front bumper at the white line and the Clovers rear bumper half-way in the intersection.

      The clueless Clover sat there The Whole Time and waited for the lights to cycle back to giving hm a green-arrow. I watched as maybe fifteen cars did this, and every single driver gave the Clover driver ‘the evil eye’ and shook their heads in disgust as they made the corner. If it was a comic strip, you could see a dozen or so clouds above with the word, “Idiot!”.

      I hope that made sense. It’s kind of difficult to describe a Clover Encounter of The Third Kind.

  5. Go ahead, helot. Call me an idiot. Because, Tor’s posts still make no sense to me. I’ve tried to parse them. I can’t.

    Most posts I make I wonder if I’m being long winded and incoherent. Then I read Tor’s and I think that I’m probably good.

    I guess we weren’t all made to be geniuses… lol…

    • I didn’t imply you were an idiot.
      That last post of his was clear as day and chock full of good advise.
      It is a pity you can’t make heads nor tails of his other posts, there’s a lot of good stuff in there.
      I do hope you checked out my link and perhaps, in combination with what Tor wrote, you picked up on some things.

      Not every answer is straightforward, sometimes the best way to learn is in a round about fashion. I.e. the forest for the trees.

  6. re: finest clover post,

    I too am a turkey junkie. A turkicanis freak. When some turkey writes something astoundingly epically stupid, my eyes begin to gleam with a wild and ravenous light.

    Turkey Junkie – Jean Shepherd – A Christmas Story

    [Now it is well know throughout the Midwest that the old man is a turkey junkie. A bona fide golly turkicanis freak. A few days before Clovermas his eyes would begin to gleam with a wild and ravenous light.]

    – the more you let clover post, the more he manages to metaphorically shoot his own eye out. classic!

  7. Dear Jean,

    I suspect you had that insight of cuckoo and cuckold without googling. Further confirmation your intellect surpasses mine. Probably surpasses by a WIDE MARGIN.


    Also from Eric up above:

    “Clover, you have a very interesting take on things. You consider non-violent, peaceful people who advocate dealing with others on the basis of mutual consent rather than violence to have “mental problems” … but regard those who insist on using violence to get their way as perfectly sane.

    One truly flew over the cuckoo’s nest…”

    I envision Cuckoo as a ready made generally understood term for statists such as clover. And their awful unforgivable Cuckoo predations.

    Anthropologically, Cuckoos grow much larger than their unwitting hosts. Consider lumbering clover hordes of yore, and the poor little Chinese, wisely building a Great Wall to keep the profligate Western Cuckoos out as best they could.

    Consider modern American Zombie Titanic beasts, all waddling to the nearest 7-11 for a refill on their seventh Big Gulp of the day.

    The building of Great Walls worked well until the Colonial Clovers entered the nautical age of the Cuckoo Bird Fleets of Plunder.

    I’m on board with nearly all the insights of the racial supremacists except for their cuckoo concepts of eugenic euthanization. And agree of course that a true voluntary society or clan has the right to its imagined and implemented political borders.

    I especially like turning the spotlight of white makes right thinking on the whites themselves. Do White Americans meet their own definitions of Whitism. Or is their quite a bit of Africanization here in the Heimat?

    It’s kind of an ugly epiphany, when one looks at who historically behaved as ethical birds. And who has been a victim of illegal immigrant pillaging and enslaving CUCKOOS.

    Pray tell, do you really believe you stand on firm ground, you who live north of the Rio Grande, and enjoy some measure of wealth, by dint of mere consequentialist ethics? How exactly is it historically, that you became better off.

    To the degree the US is rich because of the market, I support it. To the degree the US is rich because of plunder, I deny it.

    Render to the CUCKOOS what is the CUCKOOS. Which is of course, a great big dismissive KICK IN THE ASS. Or worse.

  8. “The principle at issue is whether a free man has the right to freely travel, freely contract (agree to work, to hire workers) absent coercion.

    I say that he does.”

    For the following reason(s) I disagree. I find your principle to be somewhat myopic.

    I’m a Nationalist. America for Americans, France for the French, Italy for the Italians, Egypt for the Egyptians… I understand your principle though I modify it with regard to individual and societal liberty. History shows, and we’re experiencing it here right now, what happens when a nation is subject not to “assimilable immigration” but literal invasion.

    Have you seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR-lAGj_dlQ We’re not the only ones experiencing it.

      • And un-naturally select the males. Cull the strong and self-sufficient over the centuries. Make the homogenized masses as feeble, compliant, superstitious, and pathetic as is needed in order to best serve the needs of the nation state.

    • Hi Salt,

      Certainly. But let’s be honest about our respective positions. A nationalist cannot be a Libertarian (and vice versa) as nationalism is based on group identity, and as such, incompatible with the individualism (and individual rights) at the core of Libertarian thought.

      America is also in a different category than, say, Egypt. The former is a polyglot concatenation of multiple ethnicities (and so on) while one can at least claim homogeneity for Egypt (and so on).

      There is of course the idea that America is a nation defined by the creed of its people. But then, even this is untrue – as the 310-odd million people who live within the geographic confines of the United States differ wildly in their views about almost everything.

      You stated that you disagree with the principle I articulated. But you haven’t said why. “America for Americans” is a slogan, not an argument.

      • “A nationalist cannot be a Libertarian (and vice versa) as nationalism is based on group identity, and as such, incompatible with the individualism (and individual rights) at the core of Libertarian thought.”

        Would you call Ron Paul a non-libertarian? He does not advocate open borders which by that very fact is a form of recognized nationalism. Nationalism and individualism are not incompatible. I support the individual right of free association, and as such it’s arguable that by doing so I am group identifying as to those I choose to associate with. Granted, that’s on the micro yet it’s quite applicable to the macro. If I did not want to associate with the nation writ large, being one voluntarily inside its borders and defacto a member at large (a citizen), I’m free to alter that.

        Egypt, like America, has its traditions, its language, its own peculiar history, all which combine to foster a national identity. None of which is incompatible here in America with individualism.

        Yeah, we have diverse views on many things. Most people (though maybe not today) have cookouts on the 4th of July, celebrate Christmas, fly a form of the American Flag, understand the precepts of the Declaration of Independence, do not celebrate Bastille Day as it’s not ours, know what Saturday Night Live is and use the President as a joke generator.

        “America for Americans.” Yeah, it’s slogan which I assumed most people understand the concept of.

        It’s answerable though more difficult. How long does it take to assimilate those of foreign entry? What does it mean to assimilate? Assimilate to what? It’s worn, but “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.” That’s a start. Learn the language. When one identifies with the culture, norms, history, etc of the host country one is ~assimilated. One who has completely shed what was, where one was, for what now is, where one is. I do not think such happens with the immigrant or even the first generation. In WWII there were Americans of Japanese decent who never thought of themselves as other than Americans. Same for German and Italian decent. A Japanese during WWII who did not speak Japanese or even comprehend what it was to be Japanese. “Hey, I’m an American man. I had a friend on the Arizona. I’d like some payback!” These were of later generations, not the immigrant.

        Some well argue that another aspect of what it is to be American is an understanding and embracing of the founding ideals of English Common Law.

        I agree with those who say it’s easiest for a Brit to assimilate, less so for a Frenchman, even less so for an Italian and German and almost impossible for a Somali or an Iranian. Compatibility issues. Likewise how difficult is it for an American to assimilate to Chinese, Russian, or Iraqi? Easier to go Brit or Frog.

        What is it to be assimilated? To be accepted as one of them for the simple of it that you are. That’s my take on it.

        • “What is it to be assimilated?”

          That’s a good question.

          Do you think others should be forced to pay for what you think is right, or, do you think others should be on their own to do as they will?

          Also, what kind of speed are you on to post so often? Two people?

          I mean, I stayed up late, got up way early, and yet you still beat me to the punchline, wow…. I want what you’re on.

          And, don’t go moving the goal post as you’ve done with the others – repeatedly – just answer the fookin’ questions.

          • You seem to have a lot of fight in you, Salt.
            Perhaps someday you’ll realize you’re on the the wrong side of the fence? … The Dark Side of the fence. … The, “taking” side of the fence. … The, “boot on the face of humanity” side of the fence.

            In the background, someone is saying you’re being paid to ignore all that. …You’re just a sell-out like all the rest? Let empire rule? That’s your motto?
            A limited empire, you say? An empire none-the-less. Ruler of all.

          • Dear helot,

            It took me a little longer than usual to grok where “Salt” was coming from. He jumped around so much it was not clear what his agenda was.

            But the interesting thing about expressing oneself is that no matter how cryptic one attempts to be, every declaration is also a psychological confession. That goes of course for all of us.

            Cumulatively however, his comments began to reveal that he was not motivated primarily by any yearning to discern the facts in order to ensure freedom, but instead driven by self-worth issues.

            Hence the macho posturing:
            “I don’t move goalposts. I move the ball.”

            He’s so mired in his own petty ego issues, he doesn’t realize others aren’t even on his playing field. They aren’t trying to play “fuuutbaaaaal” at all. They have no interest whatsoever in his meaningless troll-oriented games.

            They have far more serious, far more adult concerns. They see the looming police state that threatens all of us. They’re desperately racing to liberate peoples’ minds from the Myth of Authority that Salt still clings to in “very limited government” form. They know that is the only way they as individuals can be free.

        • So, in answer to my question, ‘what is it to be assimilated?’ The answer is:

          “To be accepted as one of them”

          Which leads me to wonder, what is it to be “one of them”?

          That you celebrate secular holidays and fly a flag on a certain day? That you know the language and identify with the culture, norms, history, etc?

          What kind of nonsense is that? Have you ever traveled throughout the unitedstate? There’s no such thing as a common culture, norms and history, etc… in this country!

          What is the underlying principle that makes someone, “one of them”?

          That used to be an easy question to answer.
          I’m not surprised that Salt is having some difficulty with it.

          • Dear helot,

            Many conservatives and minarchists, are often maxarchists when it comes to race and ethnicity.

            To some extent, this is understandable. As long as the State persists, it will institutionalize race and ethnicity, often to the detriment of those same conservatives and minarchists.

            But under free market anarchism, there would be no State to impose PC “cultural sensitivity” “affirmative action” “Ebonics” “race norming.” etc.

            There would be no problem with all sorts of people living side by side.

            The ONLY prerequisite that is non-negotiable, is the NAP.

          • To head off a maybe obvious response: well, what then is, ‘assimilation’?

            From my study of history and my understanding of the country I live in, it has two answers.

            1.) You bowed down and submitted to the thugs who controlled the territory you were in. You became an obeyer.
            That seems to be Salt’s take on things?

            2.) You were somewhat free to go after whatever gave you happiness, to follow your dreams toward your definition of success so long as you harmed no one. You bowed to no one, unless you wanted to.

            America has always been two worlds.

      • I beg to differ on one point, Eric. Why can’t a libertarian be a nationalist ? Is it not my right to voluntarily associate with those that I choose and not associate with those that I do not ? If I freely choose to join groups or not join them based on my personal preferences, how does that preclude me from my voluntaryist and non-agressive beliefs ? I am willing to listen. You may know more than I about these theories, as I am not much of a scholar. Please explain.

        • Hi Nathan,

          Well, it’s a question of what you mean – how you define your terms. According to the definition you’ve provided – one of individual choice and voluntary association – “nationalism” can’t be objected to on Libertarian grounds anymore than gathering together with like-minded friends to play (or watch or discuss) football.

          The problem arises when those who believe “we’re number one!” – whether of the nationalist variety or the NFL variety – require others to believe “we’re number one!” – and force them to pay for it and threaten them if they do not.

          There is arguably another problem – with “nationalism.” It is a collectivist premise. “We’re number one!” It implicitly subsumes everyone in an aggregate mass and is therefore a kind of sideways attack on the sovereignty of the individual. And that is or should be a problem for any Libertarian!

          • Eric. – thanks for your reply. I am not a theorist Maybe I am not a true libertarian. As I said, I believe in volantaryism and non-agression, and I hate the government more than anyone I know, but I believe that my country was made up of people from all over the world who came here voluntarily to participate in the Great Experiment- to see if a free people can govern themselves without kings, rulers, and despots. The Experiment has been ground into the Earth over the last 100 years, but I am willing to do my part to restore it, if possible. Before about 1913, the government had neither the money nor the power to force the citizens to do much of anything against their wishes. I want to strip that power from the government, and take the money away from them too, so they can only do what they are allowed by the Constitution, as written by the founders, before the black-robed thugs tortured and twisted it to death. Sound impossible ? Probably it is without a massive economic collapse or a dreaded (civil ?) war. Like someone else here said, I love my country but hate my government.
            I hope I explained better this time.

          • eric, I don’t know that “nationalism” means “we’re number one”. In its essence, as I see it, nationalism is more akin to “this is how it is here” in a societal type of way and we like the way things are going here now. I realize that walks a fine line with “govt. as enforcer” but it might only be a view of historical significance…..if that makes sense to you. I guess what I’m saying that anyone who wants to cross that border isn’t welcome to est. some sort of force….as in force at the point of a gun, to change things. Societies are continually changing but it’s only egregious when it’s done “by law”, as we see it happening now at a great rate on the federal level if not state and local too.

            • This. It means, in essence, that if you’re moving to a given place, then you should adapt to the people who are already there, not the other way around.

              • Indeed. That’s why there used to be quotas and prospective immigrants needed a sponsor, a job, and had to be in good health. Quotas were in place to protect American culture from an overwhelming influx of incompatible foreigners so they could be assimilated into the “melting pot” in a controlled manner without overwhelming the people already here.

                A microcosm of that was Usenet in the 1990s. Usenet began in 1979 and developed its own culture, traditions, and mores. Every September a new crop of users from colleges would come in and were quickly brought into line by the larger community and all was well. Then the general public invaded, trampled under, and all but destroyed the existing culture due to overwhelming numbers. It has been September on Usenet for about 25 years now.

                Now the same type of thing on a much larger scale, affecting the lives of everyone in the country rather than just the traditions of a small group of computer nerds, is taking place. (The groundwork in the U.S. for this was laid over 50 years ago by that rat-bastard, the prince of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy.)

        • Nathan, I have a problem with immigration and “some” libertarian views on it. If we had a truly free country and weren’t, as eric says, being mulcted to pay for all the things given to illegal aliens that not only we pay for but we can’t receive ourselves, then open borders might work. When I say it “might work”, we need to have almost no govt. for it to work.

          As long as we have the corporate “US of A”, there won’t be freedom for anyone and less so for the legal citizens who have to pay for it all.

          The Mises institute for one, advocates for open borders. They forget how our govt. works. Without that govt. I’d agree with them.

          Go to Mexico and get a visa and stay as long as you want. No, you won’t get a damn thing free and if you complain and you are past your visa end date, you’re going to find yourself hastily dumped on the American side of the border…..if you live through it.

          They have no quid pro quo. Go there and run out of money and you’re screwed, blued and tattooed. Next thing you know you’re only thing you might be able to do is(if you’re extremely lucky)become a translator(if you speak Spanish) or a really good flim flam man. Otherwise, you might live a while longer if you agree to do wet work for some drug cartel but you’d better be ready to kill everyone standing around who wants that same job. Your wet work will start with your own brains more than likely.

          But the guys who term themselves “free borders libertarians” are working with a hypothesis that doesn’t exist.

          • @8SouthMan-
            I believe in Sound Money, but am AGAINST any immigration at this time. Until we can make certain that immigrants (legal) cannot collect freebies from the rest of us, and the illegals are kicked the F out. For this, we need borders AND a government. In my libertarian view, that comes under the heading of protecting the citizens.

    • I’m sorta for me and mine and you and yours and everybody else with free will. I love the idea of Texas, not the state or government, but the land and the independent nature of the people(or used to be). Call it anything you want, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem that our culture has been taken without a shot being fired. It used to be an area of mainly whites and hispanics who freely exchanged with each other and ran off those who sought control over the indigenous population.

      It came back to me in spades last week driving from Ft. Worth west to further west and that big interstate, perfectly smooth, but limited to 60 for what reason in the middle of nowhere? Sure, to collect revenue from those who see no good reason to drive that slowly. Wide open road in wide open country replete with badged goons. I was warned of the DOT in force. Sure enough, there they were. With my untagged trailer I drove up the hill they were monitoring with my speed limiter(76mph)pegged and just ignored them. I saw a brief brake light and then they continued on. 50 friggin years of not wearing a seat belt but I did that day and it made me mad/sad at myself as much as the state. Screw ’em, I won’t be wearing it tomorrow.

      This is one thing Eric and I can agree on to the nth degree. It’s my damned life and if I’d rather get chunked out of that thing than stay strapped in it, that’s my choice(and that is my choice). Very few big rig roll-overs are survivable and head on’s between 2 big rigs? What a joke….nothing a seat belt will do except to keep you from bailing if you had time(and you won’t cause you’ll fight it up to the bitter end). Another reason to hate the insurance companies who support this crap.

    • You came here about a clover. My humble advise it not to waste your time being about a clover.

      At one end of the spectrum is your sincere desire to Tikkun Olam.
      At the other end of the spectrum is the debased Cloveric desire to Cloverize everything.

      If you find yourself unable or unwilling to mind your own life. If the power of kingmanship compels you to want to do your part to help heal, repair, and transform the world – to Tikkun Olam – then observe the anti-example of the clover, and proceed oppositionally.

      Opening Our Inner Selves to Tikkun Olam

      There is no real separation between our inner spiritual landscape and the systems of power and privilege that operate in the world. When we become more aware of the inner obstacles to freedom and peace, we are more able to work for our ideals without recreating the systems we are trying to change.

      When I know that this is what is happening right now and the next moment will be different, as long as I do not resist it, a space opens. This is the space of freedom which activates my intelligence, my free will. Neuroscientists explain the physiology of this process of liberation. We can change our brains through taking the time to pay attention to our minds under certain conditions.

      When we cultivate contemplative tools, the boundaries of our selves become more porous. We start to suffer less as we become less self-centered. With clarity and calm we take the suffering of others into our awareness and care. This motivates us to protect the widow and the orphan, the marginalized, and the forgotten. I believe that contemplative practices have the potential to help us actualize our deepest desire to be of service to each other.

      Tikkun Olam: From the Lurianic kabbalah strand of Jewish mysticism originating in the 1500s

      Hamas has proven its mettle on the battlefield. It only proves once again that Israeli invasions, whether of Lebanon or Gaza, don’t work. They merely “mow the grass” leaving Israelis and Palestinians to wait another year or two for a new round of sacrificial victims on the altar of Likudist folly.

      Tikkun Olam – Gaza: Of Making Ceasefires There is No End

  9. “That means get me to make a deal with you, or keep your hands off.

    This used to be the way of the US prior to about 1912 and the sinking of the Titanic.

    In this world of trade relationships, the US was generally silent about the practices of other nations. It was bad for business.

    There were activists and dogmatists to be sure. But I don’t believe they had much sway over the federal government.

    This is a version of the night watchman state. If there’s really a way back to that. Then I will be more than satisfied to keep quiet about any orthodox complaints I may still have about a government who claims me as its property.”

    I have no complaint with that at all. Rather fits my way of thinking actually. I thought that was rather obvious.

    What brought me here is Eric’s posts on clover drivers.

    • Okay Salt.

      Thanks for sharing. I hope you find this place to be a great bargain and a rich agora.

      I trust in the market. I believe that as you try and convince the multitude here, and the multitude simultaneously tries to convince you. That you might all become a little wealthier for the barter, haggle, and transaction.

      Jewish Business Ethics – The Role of Wealth

      The JVL is not linked as a source that justifies my conduct. Rather as a source for further clarification and enlightenment for any who wish to peruse my wares and consider giving them purchase with their minds and hearts.

      The Zero Aggression Zionists retired the 72 names of G-d. And all the christian and muslim ones they helped give birth to as well. Henceforth the one true name was now – agora.

      The Zero Aggression Muslims no longer said allahu akbar. The ZAMs said only the agora is akbar. And so it was written in the Calmud. And so it was done.

  10. Dear Bevin,

    I hope he regroups and comes back.

    At least Salt is half human, and can engage for a while. He also has some new non-sequitirs, which is nice. I could stand a hiatus from the clover and Gil regurgitations.

    Who’s gonna help Little Red Riding Hood across the bridge over the river and through the woods to Grandmother’s house?

    Amanda Seyfried Sings L’il Red Riding Hood

    Kinda thing that keeps a big bad statist wolf up at night.

        • Not THAT is a powerful statement. Something a true ZAZ JEW would say. Not a mere CHRISTIAN. Mazel Tov. A generalized version of that is going in my Free Online Calmud I hope to complete someday.

          Rabbi David used to say: “It is better to keep company with consistent adversaries than with inconsistent allies.”

          Rabbi David proclaimed this before a multitude to Keli Tor. And Keli Tor replied: “L’Chaim!” Keli Tor then further replied: “Let he who seeks to convert, be himself converted.”

          David began to be called Rabbi because he wanted to be seen as a teacher. It is a position one attains merely by ones will and ones skill. Tor in contrast, sought to teach without being seen at all. As merely a vessel. Vessel being called in Hebrew – keli.

          20 Favorite Jewish Quotes

          “Who is wise? One who learns from every man… Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations… Who is rich? One who is satisfied with his lot… Who is honorable? One who honors his fellows.”

          Becoming ZAZ Jewish (Zero Aggression Zionist)

          Your life style will also change, as well as the way you think about many things. Even the meaning of some words will change, especially if you have been Christian: words like “confession,” “heaven,” “patrilineal descent,” “Messiah,” “savior,” and others.

          Being a ZAZ Jew also means that your relationships will change. Not all your friends will be happy that you’ve become ZAZ Jewish. Worse yet, your family members might disown you, as often happens.

          When your parents, your siblings, even your children, sit down to eat a meal, you will often not be allowed to join them. You won’t even be able to attend some of their joyous occasions. It is recommended that a ZAZ Jew not enter most non-ZAZ Jewish places of worship or politics.

          If your own baby sister gets married in a church, you will most likely choose not to attend. If you have non-ZAZ Jewish children from before you converted, you will probably not attend any further occasions they’ve scheduled in a church or state building or any religious or political gathering. (If this occurs, make sure to consult with an Orthodox ZAZ Rabbi before making any decision. There may be a solution.) Nor will you celebrate Christmas or Hallowe’en any longer, or any other religious or political holiday except the ZAZ Jewish holidays.

          And you will find yourself learning many new behavioral guidelines. You will have to be concerned wherever you go about the food you can buy and eat; you will want to remember not to carry anything of the state in your pockets outside your home on the Sabbath, and many other considerations.

          You will want two sets of dishes, two sets of pots and pans (and at least one more set for Passover), and you will want to keep different types of food separate. You will have to wait six hours after eating meat foods before eating dairy foods. ZAZ Judaism will guide your steps and your thoughts every moment of your waking life.

          As a convert to ZAZ Judaism, you will be a ZAZ Jew. Think about the word “ZAZ Jew” for a minute. It’s a title we bear proudly, yet it’s a word that comes from many mouths as a curse and insult. Of course, that’s silly. It’s like when a little boy thinks he’s insulting a girl by calling her “girl!” Not only is it not an insult, but it should be borne proudly and openly.

          When I was thirteen years old, my friend and I were riding our bicycles through the side streets of Brooklyn, New York, when some Statist Gentile boy (a little younger than us, it seemed) yelled at us jeeringly, “Jew!” I turned around and yelled back at him, “Thanks!”

        • David,
          All that is necessary to understand Tor, is to realize that Angle is Angel spelled sideways.

          It’s the sound of one hand clapping.
          Sometimes a whoosh,
          sometimes silent,
          sometimes “CRASH” (followed by “OW! F*CK! WHO put THAT, THERE?!!!) 🙂

          It takes some work to unravel the threads tying together all the different ideas that are part of the tapestry of Tor’s writing. I admit sometimes I just glance over what Tor has to say – I don’t have the time to read it and analyze it.
          But that’s not Tor’s fault, for writing in a many-nuanced lyrical prose.

          You want a challenge, go read Beowulf – in early English. 😉 Tor is Modern English, though it’s a melange of messages. 🙂

          • Yeesh, You want a challenge, go read Tolstoy. Tor is easy reading compared to that, imho.

            But really, I’m surprised you guys have so much trouble with the words Tor puts on the screen. … I’m stopping short of calling you guys Baby-Winers.
            The shit ain’t that hard to understand.

          • re: winers

            Red is gray and yellow white,
            But we decide which is right.
            And which is an illusion?

            Days Of Future Passed, 1967

            The 1973 Henry Fonda Led J. Steinbeck Red Pony is the best version. If only I could sometimes step into that world and leave this frufru hawaiian shirt luau behind.

            Scene from J. Steinbeck’s The Moon Is Down

            Brave Helios wake up your steads,
            Bring the warmth the countryside needs.
            Dawn is a feeling
            A beautiful ceiling
            Children sighing
            A day to go kite flying
            Far away from school
            And Old Cowboys fighting out a duel

            Battling Ghetto Trash Straw Men In Prose For Profit Is Not A Crime

            Why Western Music Is More Complex Than Eastern

            Rather immature, yet salable, assuming yourself superior a priori. Safer ground saying more complex, and leaving it at that.

            by Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy

          • @ Helot:
            about Tolstoy, I’ve been told he’s VERY slow. to the point Dickens reads like a comic book….
            I’m not THAT masochistic, I only mortify the body in the gym, and the mind at work. 😉

            My “trouble” is merely time… Tor takes a few minutes to piece together sometimes, but he’s very good at weaving things together and making connections. I reckon he intentionally smudges the message, like the old Zen masters and ryu masters – only those worthwhile will take the time to try; only the best will make it through.

            Me, I’m usually commenting from work – I can’t always take the time, even 5 minutes. Especially now that the Boss (PHB in Dilbertese) has gotten us all into a shared lab… Alwyas a chance someone will be looking over my shoulder… I need to at least LOOK like i’m working.

  11. One thing I find humorous on various levels is the thought of a libertarian attaining the Office of President of the United States, or even perhaps a Justice of the Supreme Court. Reading all you here, even libertarians in the Congress seems oxymoronic. Yes, I understand that one must start the process, but it’s humorous no matter. Think of the “violence’ such office holder would have to entertain, having to be done as to certain, ahem, government jobs, pensions, contracts, etc.

    The thought is simply delicious.

    • You’re a democidal psychopath. Enjoy burning in HELL for your willing part in the murder of 262 million people by government per 100 years. (As calculated by U of Hawaii Prof R J Rummel)

      You accept and support holocaust institutions that kill 50,000 people every single week.

      20th Century Democide

      Why would any of us want to attain office in an institution whose business is misery and murder. We’re not Hitler. You are.

      • Dear Tor,

        I have to say, before I leave this unpleasant matter with “Salt” altogether, that one thing about him particularly truly jaw-dropping.

        I refer of course to his incessant appeals to “intellectual authority.” He kept demanding that I provide citations from other people about what libertarian is.

        It was so out of left field I let it slide several times before I finally realized that was actually how his mind worked. Here was the bizarre spectacle of a champion of “very limited government” demanding that “authorities” be cited before he would allow any debate to proceed.

        I’m referring of course to his assertion that fraud is not a violation of the NAP. For some inexplicable reason, he assumed I was obligated to cite some “authority” to prove that fraud was unacceptable!

        Very strange experience indeed. I can’t recall encountering such a flagrant “appeal to authority” in the past 20 years. “Such and such expert says it’s so, therefore it is!” I guess I’ve been around other anacaps too long and gotten spoiled.

        • It was very bizarre!

          One moment I thought he was a human being capable of forming concepts and pursuing his own thoughts. The next, he utterly collapsed like a house of cards and started spewing non-sequitirs.

          I suppose he’ll also demand I cite some researchers or scientists that concur with my conclusion that governments killing 50,000 people every week is not a good thing.

          I googled him some decent challenges to the NAP, in hopes of ginning up the dojo, but he was not up to the challenge. Maybe next time.

          The Mississippi Bridge Gambit 0 anacaps 1.

          • Dear Tor,

            “One moment I thought he was a human being capable of forming concepts and pursuing his own thoughts. The next, he utterly collapsed like a house of cards and started spewing non sequiturs.”

            Exactly right. It’s what threw many people off, I suspect. The strangely erratic quality.

        • I’m having a hard time thinking of any libertarian theorist that believes fraud is not a violation of the NAP. I’ve never even seen the subject debated, to be honest. Every ancap I have read has generally said something to the effect of “theft is when property is taken from its rightful owner, whether physically or by fraud.”

          Mind you, I understand that libertarian theorists can be wrong, and I disagree with almost everybody on something or another pretty much. But, I’ve never heard anyone argue that fraud isn’t criminal.

      • “Why would any of us want to attain office in an institution whose business is misery and murder.”

        Are you saying that no libertarian has never run for President? What?

        (but of course you’re referring to your brand of libertarianism)

        [laughs] You guys do dance well.

        • What brought you to our humble little corner of the internet?

          In my case, I don’t care what you believe. Just deal with me in a respectful market way. That means get me to make a deal with you, or keep your hands off.

          This used to be the way of the US prior to about 1912 and the sinking of the Titanic.

          In this world of trade relationships, the US was generally silent about the practices of other nations. It was bad for business.

          There were activists and dogmatists to be sure. But I don’t believe they had much sway over the federal government.

          This is a version of the night watchman state. If there’s really a way back to that. Then I will be more than satisfied to keep quiet about any orthodox complaints I may still have about a government who claims me as its property.

          Are you asking me if some “libertarians” have run for political office. The answer to that is yes, some have. What do you think that means.

          Do you feel the government has a right to your life and time. If they send you a letter demanding you deploy to Afghanistan, will you just willingly go, no questions asked. What do you consider a reasonable govt. How is a govt to be made reasonable.

          I’m sure even Hitler was a cute baby. And probably a nice kid until a certain age. What is to be done when someone becomes irredeemable.
          Which of todays politicians do you respect. Which ones do you believe uphold the traditions of the founders.

          If Thomas Jefferson’s great grandson breaks into your home and holds you at gunpoint and starts demanding things. Are you honored to be asked to serve, since he’s part of the bloodline of the founding fathers.

          Libertarian defintion:

          Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.

          Although some present-day libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights, such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources, others, notably libertarian socialists, seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management.

          While minarchists believe a limited centralized government is necessary to protect individuals and their property from certain transgressions, anarchists propose to completely eliminate the state as an illegitimate political system.

          The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice.

          While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism.

          In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.

          As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.

          • “Which of todays politicians do you respect. Which ones do you believe uphold the traditions of the founders.”

            Ron Paul, though I do not agree on every position he has. Mostly I disagree with his position on free trade. He’s stated he is not for open borders.

            Twice he was rejected. This country, in my opinion, is getting what it deserves. I see this paradoxically in Deut. 17:6

            “What do you consider a reasonable govt. How is a govt to be made reasonable.”

            When a politician, or a judge, goes, in any fashion, against the plain textual reading and organic intent of, for instance the Commerce Clause, – take him immediately outside and hang him.

            • Hi Salt,

              I like RP also – and try not to make the mistake of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. Therefore, even though he is not a “perfect” Libertarian, I’d be ecstatic to have him as president rather than Obama (or The Chimp).

        • Hi Salt,

          No,it’s not that.

          We are simply advocating for a principled system. For the future. What went on in the past is academic…

      • Eric, just wondering, how do you feel about the idea of running for office?

        Mind you, I know you don’t want to do it. But, do you think it would be wrong to do so? And, do you think it could be useful to do so?

        I’m at least open to the idea of eventually doing so at some point, so I’m curious what your thoughts are. If I were ever to do it, my goal would be more to educate than to actually win. Although, if I did somehow win obviously that would be OK to.

        Ron Paul is the obvious example of an “almost perfect” candidate, but I think Justin Amash and Thomas Massie are top quality candidates as well. Not pure libertarians, but for practical intents and purposes “close enough” considering where the political system is right now.

        Rand I’m a bit more skeptical of, he seems to want the Presidency too badly and that worries me. I’ll probably vote for him but I’m not thrilled with him, and I could never morally justify his strategy (assuming it is strategy, if he really believes the stuff he says that’s another issue, and perfectly possible as well.)

        Anyone less libertarian than Rand I mostly consider a waste of time, more or less. So, I’m picky, but at the same time, I want more PRINCIPLED people to run for office.

        • Ideally, we’d not have to sweat this issue because politicians would hardly exist – or be (largely) an irrelevance because they wouldn’t have much to do.

          But – as a practical matter – I recognize that “holding the line” is important. And “taking back turf” even more so.

          That’s why I supported Ron Paul – including financially.

          And it’s why I would also support a pro-liberty candidate for office.

          • I’m with you. But considering how things are, and considering the areas in which I’m gifted as a person, I’m interested in eventually running for political office. Not because i actually want those offices to exist, but because considering those offices do exist, I feel that its better to fill those offices with principled libertarians than with anyone else.

            I’d also note (in defense of the idea of running for office) that, as unfair as it is, ideas become more mainstream once politicians start talking about them. Again, I know its not fair or logical. But, the average person simply doesn’t know about or care about Rothbard or any of the other anarcho-capitalist academic professors, and they see them in a similar light as they do liberal utopians at times. But Ron Paul they had to pay attention to, since he ran for President. And that Presidential campaign got a lot of people, myself included, thinking in ways that they hadn’t before.

            Why would a libertarian want to be part of the most murderous organization in the world? Well, a libertarian certainly can never justify PARTICIPATING in such murders. But fighting against them, whether from the outside OR the inside, is something I condone.

      • I have not voted in over 25 years. RP had my undivided attention and I even contributed to his campaigns. What the (R)s did to him was disgusting. Shutting him out.

        I understand the principled system though I view it differently in practice and practicality. When it comes to my view of government and its very limited responsibilities, I’d say 99% of the population could live a lifetime without ever coming into contact with it.

        • Yep, absolutely. Ron Paul was amazing. If it wasn’t for him, I would probably not be a libertarian today. There was a time when I was a neocon, a little different on a few issues, but mostly a neocon. But, I remember loving Ron because of his views on guns and his conservative economic stances. Then I started listening and changed a lot fairly quickly.

          • Ideally, I’d like to see the nation-state eliminated entirely. But, even getting it back to its strict constitutional limits, and severely rolling back governments at the state and local level would be a HUGE improvement, and I feel worth working toward. So, I’m not necessarily all or nothing.

        • I’m in agreement, Salt.

          I’ve mentioned this before, but: I’d be ecstatic if the country could simply return to the level of relative freedom that existed when I was a kid in the ’70s and ’80s.

          It would not be my ideal – but it’d be a damn sight better than it is now!

          • Then it seems to me that for a libertarian to run for office, provided he does not sell out his principles, is a great thing to do.

            Of course, that’s easier said than done. Its not easy to get elected. But, it may be worth trying.

            • It may be that the exercise is untenable in that it’s oxymoronic to champion liberty by seeking to become a capo or even the don in a mafia. A benign capo or don, perhaps. But nonetheless.

              I incline to the view that the whole rotten edifice must come down – and the sooner the better. Better, perhaps, to pour gasoline on the proverbial fire.

        • Dear Salt,

          When RP was running, I made a vow that if he shouldn’t be selected. Or at least given some kind of higher authority in this wretched dysfunctional monstrosity of a government.

          Then I would pray and work for the destruction of this hopeless den of thieves and plunders. And here I am, carrying out my threat, instead of creating and sharing LOLcats, the true purpose of the internet, except in times of great strife and war.

  12. “Fraud is using force to retain what is rightfully another person’s money or property after obtaining it under false pretenses.”

    [laughs] and requotes –

    “4. Zwolinski claims the NAP offers no prohibition on fraud.

    Hey, he’s right again! Fraud is a pretty deep subject, but the principled libertarians will argue that legal protections from fraud are not necessary. Fraud can only come about if an investor failed to do his due diligence. Basically it’s your own fault if you get scammed.”

    I’m done with you, Bevin. You may now claim “VICTORY!”

    • As those who comment frequently on the Net know, individuals with Salt’s troll-like psychological attitude are all too numerous.

      What’s sad is how their interest is not really in clarifying important issues such as natural rights and individual liberty, but in “winning,” as they perceive “winning.”

      Unfortunately sometimes one winds up wasting time and energy on them before it is clear that is what they are.

      The only consolation is that the exchange winds up on the record, and third parties have the opportunity to make up their own minds.

      • “The only consolation is that the exchange winds up on the record, and third parties have the opportunity to make up their own minds.”

        You got that right.

  13. Still putting words in my mouth, Bevin. Constructing the argument to which you wish to reply.

    Here’s one for you, Bevin. Is “breach of contract” more akin to threats or physical assault or to “being taken” (defrauded via false pretenses)? Should have known who you were doing business with; due diligence.

    I find that interesting as per the Thick Libertarian link which I quote –

    “4. Zwolinski claims the NAP offers no prohibition on fraud.

    Hey, he’s right again! Fraud is a pretty deep subject, but the principled libertarians will argue that legal protections from fraud are not necessary. Fraud can only come about if an investor failed to do his due diligence. Basically it’s your own fault if you get scammed.”

    Hey, I’m not the one who linked to that site. Neither did you, which I suppose that you have a different opinion?

    • To undecided third parties,

      Notice that Salt has not denied that he advocates “only one government in any given territorial jurisdiction, with a monopoly on the use of force therein.”

      As market anarchists know from studying the issue inside out and upside down for several decades, such a “very limited government” must initiate force in order to impose its monopoly, which means of course that its very establishment entails the initiation of brute force coercion, and destroys any moral legitimacy it might claim.

      That of course is the core of the problem, around which Salt tap dances and goes on and on about “putting words in my mouth.”

      • Begging the question are you? You’re the one who says I’m stating such and your making s**t up again. Then again, you have not risen to my challenge to your statement that “Breach of contract is a subset of initiation of violence” in light of another libertarian source, quoted above, which by plain language says otherwise.

        We’re not all Misesian/Rothbardian, Bevin. I’m not a market anarchist. BTW, you’re the one dancing.

        • As observers from the sidelines can surely tell, the issue is not all that complicated.

          The issue is whether so-called “limited government” is morally defensible and politically practicable.

          Salt (apparently) maintains that it is. I do not.

          Other matters are all secondary or even tertiary in importance, not worth wasting time and energy on.

          Not complicated at all.

    • Re: fraud

      Since it was secondary issue, I temporarily ignored it.

      Fraud is using force to retain what is rightfully another person’s money or property after obtaining it under false pretenses.

      Brute force IS definitely involved. It is involved in the RETAINING phase. it should have been returned but was not.

      The rightful owner has the moral right to use force to recover what is his.

      • “Fraud is using force to retain what is rightfully another person’s money or property after obtaining it under false pretenses.

        Brute force IS definitely involved. It is involved in the RETAINING phase. it should have been returned but was not.”

        Hey, Bevin, cite your source as to defining Fraud in that manner.

        No threats or physical violence was used in the obtaining under false pretenses. Likewise, no threats or physical violence have been made in its being retained. That it should have been returned but was not is not an act of violence. The only one threatening physical violence is you.

        You do enjoy redefining words, don’t you.


        • I think it necessary to add, I agree with getting your property back, Bevin, by whatever means necessary. Have at it, the fraudster is all yours; regardless of whether he initiated any violence or not.

          • Hi Salt,

            Fraud is a species of aggression. Therefore, self-defense is entirely justified. If someone defrauds you, you’ve got every right to seek redress, to be made whole.

        • Salt,

          You’re being disingenuous. Fraud is the taking of someone else’s rightful property – and taking is aggression, by definition. That it achieved without overt violence does not negate the fact that something has been taken – and had the victim been aware of the fraud, he’d never have consented to whatever the transaction was.

          It’s of a piece with slipping a girl a roofie, waiting for her to pass out and then having your way with her. You haven’t physically overpowered her, but it’s rape nonetheless.

    • Dear Salt,
      Maybe you’re a Hayekian Socialist. As one possibility. Good for you. Just be advised if you come to one of our homes and demand our contribution for your bridges with an earnest do-gooder smile on your face.

      We might meet you behind a closed screen door with an AR-15 slung over our shoulder. And politely and firmly decline. We’re “those kinds” of libertarians. Not any of the other ones found elsewhere.

      If you’ve brought some materials, and plan on constructing a bridge right then and there without our permission, it might get rather unpleasant.

      If you have to come back a second time, this time with the Army and the Army Corp of Engineers, to get that bridge done. Well now we all can see you were just a garden variety looter all along. Not sure what you are, not sure it matters. Just don’t count me in as one of your easy to loot victims.

      Matt Zwolinski

      If the exchange is not voluntary, what then

      To eliminate the ambiguity in the meaning of voluntariness, I proposed the formal notion of euvoluntariness, or “true voluntariness.” For a market exchange to be euvoluntarysix conditions must be met:

      The parties own the objects or services being exchanged, according to the conventional interpretation of ownership.

      The parties have both the legal and practical capacity to transfer these objects or services.

      There is no fraud, and no psychological compulsions such as addiction or neuropathy.

      The exchange does not produce large-scale uncompensated non-pecuniary externalities, and does not impose costs on third parties without their express voluntary consent.

      Neither party is coerced in the sense of being forced to exchange by threat of violence or other form of active aggression.

      Neither party is coerced into exchange by dire necessity, and neither party has enough bargaining power to impose an unconscionable price.

      Hayekian Socialism – Libertarian Mungerfesto

      The argument for libertarianism – Mike Munger

      I see the argument for libertarianism as an argument from autonomy, or self-ownership, and a presumption against the initiation of force. Neither of these arguments is airtight, and many people have pointed out problems with each, which I acknowledge.

      Nonetheless. By autonomy I mean both that the individual owns his or her own body, time, and conscience, and that subjective judgments about what is good or bad for oneself deserve a strong presumption of deference.

      What I mean is that there is a burden on the state, or any group, or any other person, to satisfy before the presumption in favor of self-ownership and judgments about individual goals can be overturned.

      In particular, the presumption in favor of self-ownership requires that the state or groups be prevented from using the individual or harming a person for the benefit others, even if the harm is “objectively” slight and the benefit is “objectively” enormous.

      • Dear Tor,

        The situation is becoming clearer.

        Salt, so-called, is a pinch hitter for clover, who was getting massacred at EPA.

        It took a while to piece it together, but there it is.

        • @Bevin,
          Here is a young statist cuckoo, in this instance aggressing against a Reed Warbler.

          Cuckoos laying their eggs in other birds nests is a good metaphor for how nationstates operate.

          If these birds were subject to human law:

          The young cuckoo will kill the Reed Warblers own children with no repercussions. Or the Reed Warbler will be charged with a crime for evicting the trespassing cuckoo.

          The laws are all of the cuckoos, by the cuckoos, and for the cuckoos. I say pay unnatural laws and trespassing cuckoos no mind. And certainly don’t feed them or assist them.

          Trespassing common cuckoo chick ejects the young eggs of a Reed Warbler out of his own got damn nest.

          • Dear Tor,

            Yes, I read about cuckoos some time ago. I was astounded at how ruthless the process was.

            It certainly puts the lie to the Bambi-fied understanding of nature foisted upon young people by the Illuminati at Disney.

          • Tor,
            You said:
            The laws are all of the cuckoos, by the cuckoos, and for the cuckoos. I say pay unnatural laws and trespassing cuckoos no mind. And certainly don’t feed them or assist them.

            Isn’t that completely backwards? After all, what does the squatting cuckoo do?
            Trespassing common cuckoo chick ejects the young eggs of a Reed Warbler out of his own got damn nest.

            This is a cuckoos nature.
            The Statist is no different.

            At the very least, persuade them to go elsewhere. Preferrably, hell, but you might be mroe charitable than I.
            Statist is merely Tyrant in microcosm. A cuckoo squatter who will demand unearned “rights” and steal your time, effort, and food, and leave you with nothing.

            I’d wager it’s like being cuckolded, and finding out the child isn’t yours after 10 years or so of fathering and supporting. You want those ten years back, even though it’s not the child’s fault. Most men want out of the relationship (yet they’ll still be held accountable to pay child support for the not-theirs child, BTW.) It’s not to punish the child, but to punish the cuckoo cuckolding woman…

            Illegal immigrants, fifth columnists, Statists, and even would-be tyrants (Hitler being THE example – Austrian, rejected from the Austrian army, went to Germany and enlisted; the rest is history.)

            Clovers are the same. You let one in, it’s a minor nusiance – but they somehow smell each other, and coagulate in a location, choking off all reason and common sense.
            Best to give them a polite indication to leave, and, if the hint is ignored or rudely rejected – employ less civil tactics, such as refusing to do business with them. If they won’t move on anyway (quite possible in this day and age), Maybe they HAVE found a permanent home…

            “He’ll make good fertilizer / and there’s plenty more like that.” (Old Irish folk song, I forget the name; Brady of Ulsterban, maybe?)

            The migration itself IS the aggression.
            I fear this will become a MAJOR issue in the not-too-distant-future.

      • I am closer to Hayek than Mises in some regards. Now to this –

        “In particular, the presumption in favor of self-ownership requires that the state or groups be prevented from using the individual or harming a person for the benefit others, even if the harm is “objectively” slight and the benefit is “objectively” enormous.”

        I notice the use of the word “others”, not “all”. In that sense I totally agree. Kelo is an example of such gone horribly awry; others being special interests not to mention New London itself. New London society, in general, was harmed.

        In a broad sense, roads impact the fewest, is objectively slight with enormous benefits to all insofar as to furthering individual and societal liberty. Roads are one of the very few exceptions.

      • Dear Tor,

        As with clover, Salt knows he cannot actually win arguments about the NAP with Eric or commentators here.

        But he can disrupt things by trolling in a more devious and less straightforward manner than clover is capable of.

        Interesting how this cat and mouse game between goonvermin mouthpieces and libertarians has evolved. It’s one thing to read about it. It’s another to be directly involved.

          • “I’m beating you. [laughs]”

            Wow. Salt really, really, really didn’t get it, even after I repeatedly tried to lay it all out for him.

            He’s still stuck at the level of:

            “I’m beating you. [laughs]”

          • Gee, what happened to

            I’m done with you, Bevin. You may now claim “VICTORY!”

            As with clover, Salt cannot be counted on to do what he says.

  14. from the Thick Libertarian link –

    A response to the Thick Libertarian > “I would argue that’s a bad interpretation of the NAP. How does emitting pollution rise to the level of threats or physical assault? It doesn’t.”

    I would argue equally that failure to perform on a contract also does not rise to the level of threats or physical assault. But what then of Bevin’s “Breach of contract is a subset of initiation of violence”?

    I can make a better case that pollution does than failure to perform on a contract. Just ask any asthmatic. You know, around certain perfumes I cannot breathe? Am I not being assaulted?

    Appears even libertarians cannot agree on many things.

    • Salt still can’t see what’s right in front of his eyes.


      He still assumes that prior agreement on all these matters is necessary, and therefore there must be only one “very limited government” with a monopoly in any given territorial jurisdiction, metaphorically “laying down the law.”

      He can’t see that prior agreement is unnecessary. Competing PDAs can negotiate settlements without reference to any “one true standard.” Prior agreement is not required.

      The only premise required is the NAP. All else is negotiable.

    • The libertarians here are not “adherers to labels.” We don’t speak for any other libertarians anywhere else. This is our libertarian society. There are many like it. But this one is ours.

      You see a link to Lewrockwell. In the main we unanimously consent to being part of that umbrella site and institute. Where we differ, we’ve made clear among ourselves.

      Our goal is not to form a more perfect union and establish a brand identity. Words serve our ends. We do not serve words or labels.

      It’s closer to how ducks consider themselves birds. Most closely related to swans and geese. They live in their habitat, and respect other birds that better exploit other habitats.

      Thus Germans, Japanese, French, that don’t post in English nor visit the Western US where I live, have NOTHING to do with me. Except in regards to free trade, which I want as much as possible with them.

      I think ducks feel the same. They’re okay with most other birds. But not CUCKOOS. Which are kleptoparasites. Stealers of other birds nests.

      “Cuckoos don’t bother building their own nests – they just lay eggs that perfectly mimic those of other birds and take over their nests. But other birds are wising up, evolving some seriously impressive tricks to spot the cuckoo eggs.”

      Nest stealing cuckoo birds

      I likewise personally consider any kleptoparasitical human being as not of my same species. If he makes his living thru stealing from other humans, I hope he perishes. I wouldn’t be inclined to help him if he lay dying in front of me.

      He better be offering a big cash incentive right upfront. If he wants any of my time or resources. I’m with the Chosen Duck Good / Goyim Duck Bad protocol on that score.


  15. I deny any such thing as a political border. What kind of mind freaked ninny agrees to behave one way when he’s in Maryland and another way when he’s in Virginia.

    It’s got damn retarded is what these political borders are. At least England and the US are separated by an ocean border, and it makes some tiny amount of sense.

    Even then, our common language and culture is not really different here or there, no matter how many men with guns try to indoctrinate us into believing otherwise.

    Here’s the Thick Libertarians call to reject the NAP

    Borders – The On line Freedom Academy

    But what about immigrants, swamping our culture and stealing our jobs? That happens to be a hot-button political issue at this writing. It too is riddled with false premises.

    First, America has a long history of immigration, even if we don’t count the probable influx of Asians across the Bering ice- or land-bridge.

    Everybody here is an immigrant or descended from one; and “our culture” is the result, and it’s uniquely rich; an eclectic mix of English and Spanish and Irish and Scottish and Russian and Swedish and German and Norwegian and Polish and Chinese… the list hardly ends.

    Future waves will enrich it still further; we have nothing whatever to fear. People come here because they like it. Then second, note that fatal plural “our”; it does not exist. There is no collective “us” – only 317 million self-owning individuals.

    And third, a job is not an item of property, it is a contract. Read it, if you have one; it says you will perform certain tasks for the Boss, and the Boss will pay you a certain wage, and the agreement can terminate at any time upon X weeks’ notice by either party. The “right to a job” is yet another work of fiction; it never existed.

    We each have the right to offer our services in exchange for pay (why? – because they are our services, since we own our own lives) but nobody has any right to force an employer to hire (he owns his, too!) And if a new immigrant can do the same work (not probable) for less pay, good luck to him.

    Oh, and fourth: new members of a society are in no sense a burden (except in the fairy-tale world of government welfare “entitlements”) but always an asset! Why? – because, in every voluntary exchange, such as work for pay, both parties win for each has a different set of values and priorities.

  16. “Are you really going to equate a duck – an actual waterfowl, a specific living individual creature – with “society”?”

    Of course not, so I must have been trying to make point. Perhaps about the use of language and common definitions so as to have meaningful conversation. I know you know what a duck is which is why I was surprised you’d posit what you did as to the term society.

    ““Society” is a rhetorical device; it has no reality. It’s at best a generalization. At worst, it’s a mean trick used to justify some people ordering others about, taking their stuff… “for the good of society.” Read: For the good of themselves. ”

    Now that’s rhetoric. Okay, I’ll play. Do you believe, as a libertarian (it is a Party plank), in open borders? They’re merely a rhetorical device, having no reality. Can’t see them from space, not like one can see a duck; hey, there’s a duck. They’re a human construct to justify keeping people out (or in as you may), controlling population, for the good of society; read: for the good of themselves.

    I disagree as to open borders.

    • Dear Salt,
      At most society should be one’s family friends coworkers and neighborhood. And whoever we as a neighborhood unanimously agree to associate with.

      We can’t mix and match what we now endure with what we seek to bring about.

      It cannot be that I’m in a forced relationship with 317 million other Americans. I do not consent to that.

      Don’t you see how accepting that as true means a worse reality than the slaves of a plantation before 1865 experienced. At least in their case, they had immediate access to their owners, and had some hope of affecting their condition.

      This blog is about self ownership

      What if tomorrow all the governments declare the entire roster of the United Nations to be a single society.

      Now is the Earth one vast society of 7.1 billion people.

      Think of what being a duck means from an individual duck’s perspective. He only knows his own senses, and immediate fellow ducks.

      This John Q Duck need not concern himself with aligning himself with and remaining compliant with the habits of millions of ducks thousands of miles away whom he will never meet.

      If anarchy works for the lowly duck and helps him flourish. How much so for the human ape.

      • “If anarchy works for the lowly duck and helps him flourish. How much so for the human ape.”

        Because maximizing liberty can be more well achieved by other than anarchy. Anarchy itself is an unfortunate necessity when governance has become anathma to maximizing liberty. I think of anarchy as that area between bad and good. It’s transitional at best.

        As much as I dislike what Reagan did, he was quite right when he said “government is the problem.” That was not to say no government is the solution unless one goes out of context. It’s what government should do and its relationship to people and society that is of importance to me. As much as I appreciate Mises (or Rothbard) on Economics, I do not agree with them in all respects.

        • Well, I’d love to see a few state scientists have a go at it. A new duck dynasty awaits us.

          Listen up ducks. I’ve permanently attached different colored leg tags to you all. Go stand with your colors.

          Red tag ducks, you are the Mallardians.
          Yellow tag ducks, you are the Rubber Ducks.
          Blue tag ducks, you are the Mighty Ducks.
          Green tag ducks, you are all part of Quackistan.

          How is this formation of 4 duck nations formed in a color revolution going to bring them evolutionary and competitive advantage.

          This idea of nation building exists in the Greek, Latin, and English iterations of the bible. Because Jews were culturally older and wiser, and had the foresight to make it so.

          None of it was in the original Jewish testament sources. Why exactly do you suppose the 1611 bible is called the King James Version?

          It’s because it’s the ancient scriptures translated and made into poetic rhythmically pleasing stanzas that serve his earthly kingly ambitions. Ambitions greatly aided by wise Jewish Viziers and Financiers.

          I consider this the true James Bond. That all English language indoctrinated Christians are shaped and limited by the King James Bible.

          I’ll tell you what I know. Under original Jewish Duck old testament doctrine, there are Chosen Ducks, and Every Goyim Can Go F*ck Himself Ducks, guess which one you and I are a part of.

    • Can you touch society? Have a conversation with it? Sleep with it? Where does “society” live?

      “Society” is an abstraction, a rhetorical device. It has no reality as other than a rhetorical device.

      A border is a reality – an actual physical line of demarcation. Created by humans, certainly. But unlike “society,” a border actually exists. There it is. You can see it – assuming there’s a fence or a wall or a line on the ground. You can cross it. It is physically defined.


      And: I am fine with open borders – provided there is no welfare state, no transfer payments. If people merely wish to cross artificial borders to live and work, then I have no right to object. Or rather, to do such people violence by preventing them from coming here to live and work.

      • I find your usage of violence problematic, but since you do use it in such manner, economically speaking, what happens when the workforce increases due to population increase without a concomitant rise in production? Do not wages fall? By letting in all that wish to come here and work, and since wages fall (simple supply and demand) because of such, might that not be arguably doing violence against the job holders/wages of those here?

        This is one aspect of the Free Trade argument, free movement of labor, that I take issue with. I think that, ultimately, such free movement has the deleterious effect of lowering the standard of living.

        • What right have I to prevent another man from working for a lower wage, if he freely consents to do so?

          Am I entitled to a certain amount of money?

          • No, you are not entitled. I ask you this, is my premise that such a rise in the labor force without concomitant rise in production false? If not, does the lowering of the standard of living advance individual and societal liberty?

            It’s the answer that dictates whether the policy of open borders is beneficial or not.

            • The principle at issue is whether a free man has the right to freely travel, freely contract (agree to work, to hire workers) absent coercion.

              I say that he does.

      • RE:Open borders, and my comment here: http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/07/15/dancing-clovers/#comment-398767

        I argree that if soemone wants to come and live and work in an area, we shouldn’t reject them out of hand. White, Black, Red, Yellow, Purple with pink pola dots – I don’t care, PROVIDED you adhere to the rules of civilized peoples, and not the Rules for Radicals.
        As an example:
        You’re Muslim? Move on: I don’t want to have a neighbor who wants to kill me. (Beheadings in New Jersey ring a bell? How about the rape, where his defense was that, as a Muslim, he could take any woman he wanted, any time he wanted, and therefore he couldn’t be held to answer for a crime, as from his religion, he’d comitted no crime.)
        I pick on the Muslims here; similar rules WRT Blacks.
        I don’t want someone whose idea of fun is punching people out, “Just Because.” No Polar Bear Hunting in my ‘hood, ya hear me, homie? I’m gonna Axe you again, homie, and plant it in ya fo’head.
        Now, If Malcom X (The original) were to come live in my neighborhood, especially in the later years? So he’s black. Or Melatonin-enhanced. So what? Disciplined, hard-working, honest, by then restive, for all practical purposes (He’d broken off from Islam, BTW). HE didn’t have hsi pants around his knees, and he would most DEFINITELY call the inner city denizens of today n-ggers. (Proof, if you will, is that Michael Nutter, black Democrat mayor of Philly, has said that to his constituents, in a public speech: If you won’t want to be treated like n-ggers, DON’T BE ONE. Don’t TALK like one, don’t DRESS like one. Wear your pants correctly, get a job, stop blaming whites for all your problems, and make an honest LIFE for YOURSELF. Malcolm X, MLK, Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Bill Cosby, Ice T, Ice cube, Spike Lee, 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, Smokey Joe, Smokey Robinson, Muhammed Ali, etc, etc, etc – these men came up, sometimes from worse situations, Certainly against more prejudice and issues, and they MADE A DIFFERENCE in the world. I wouldn’t mind meeting most of them. Not so much Spike Lee, for political reasons, though. 🙂 )

        I object to those who bring nothing but cheap, illegal manual (unskilled) labor, and then proceed, like the cuckoo, to take over. Mexican or Martian, this si MY home: You come here, you contribute, or you don’t belong. the fact that I am FORCED to pay for services for your worthless @$$ is the problem. the fact that I will go to prison, while you won’t even be deported, for (for example) rape or vehicular homicide – THAT burns my butt.

        Come in peace to build a better life? Then the borders are somewhat irrelevant.
        Come to colonize?
        Time to feed the gators…. Or the great whites.

  17. “But Salt – what (who?) is “society”?”

    Eric, what’s a duck? I know what a duck is, so do you. Why do we call it a duck?

    “Absent the specific consent of every individual, what “society” boils down to is some people presuming to speak for others.”

    Are you serious? That ain’t no common understanding of what a duck is that I’ve ever seen. Yours isn’t any boiling down I’ve ever seen which makes it hard to communicate; see duck.

    “if we do not refrain from doing violence, then we have no business objecting when violence is done unto us.

    That’s what I like best about the NAP: It is rigorously consistent.”

    I have no problem with that, axiomatically. Here’s a question – If one person performs their end of an agreement (contract) and the other does not, by what mechanism do you get redress where such redress can only be accomplished by way of redress by force? I do X by agreement, you owe me Y by agreement. I did my part. You refuse.
    “Pay me,” I say.
    “No,” you say, “and I have not shown violence towards you, so get lost as you cannot initiate violence (redress by force) towards me or my property..”
    “Wanna bet?” WHAM! “So, how’s your NAP looking now?”

    I understand what you wish to accomplish, it being of an honorable nature. Therein lies a stumbling block as not all are honorable and I have history on my side as to that.

    • @Salt-

      The NAP isn’t as simple as you make it out to be (although still quite simple.)

      The NAP says that no person has a right to initiate violence against another person OR his property.

      The property element of this is very important.

      If you sign a contract with me agreeing to pay me 100 dollars for a toaster, and I give you the toaster but you do not pay me, you are a thief. Via contract you transferred ownership of the hundred dollars to me, thus I am the rightful owner of that hundred dollars.

      This is very different than supposedly “victimizing society” by refusing to pay taxes (in which case no agreement was made, and the property you are withholding rightfully belongs to you) or by deciding to use drugs or owning an automatic rifle or so forth, none of which are by nature aggressive acts.

      I guess the issue is you shouldn’t think of violence ultra-literally. If I swing my fist at your face and punch you, I’ve obviously used violence against you. But if I threaten to do so unless you do something for me, that’s also violence (via threat) and if I steal your stuff, I’ve done violence to you by taking what is rightfully yours. The thing is, though, in both of these cases, we’re still dealing with an actual victim. Not an abstract.

      Supposedly, if I smoke pot, I am victimizing “society.” Or even by being overweight, according to some of the modern liberals. Or if I don’t “help” pay for a public school. But in none of these cases have I actually violated anyone’s rights. I’ve violated an abstract. There is a huge difference.

      For what its worth, I do use the term “society” at times, but I think its something we need to be careful about. Because its an abstraction that doesn’t exist in reality. Its an abstraction. Which, can be useful in certain contexts, but not for figuring out victims according to a justifiable law, because its subjective.

      • “For what its worth, I do use the term “society” at times, but I think its something we need to be careful about. Because its an abstraction that doesn’t exist in reality. Its an abstraction.”

        Fine. But it is an abstraction most people understand, like calling a duck a duck, and have defined. “what “society” boils down to is some people presuming to speak for others” is not one of them.

    • Salt,

      Are you really going to equate a duck – an actual waterfowl, a specific living individual creature – with “society”?

      A duck is real – look, there’s a duck! It’s alive, it quacks, it swims.

      “Society” is a rhetorical device; it has no reality. It’s at best a generalization. At worst, it’s a mean trick used to justify some people ordering others about, taking their stuff… “for the good of society.” Read: For the good of themselves.

      On the rest: If you take my property I am entitled to recover it from you. That is self-defense. And self-defense is compatible with the NAP.

      • @Eric- “society” is an abstraction. I do think abstractions can sometimes be useful, as long as we understand that they are in fact abstractions.

        A duck isn’t an abstraction. It is concrete. So there is a difference.

        • Exactly, David.

          “Society” is a an inherently slippery/disingenuous term. On the face of it, it means all the people within a given area. That’s a benign-enough generality. In actual practice, it is used by unscrupulous demagogues to imply a singularity of common aims/desires, with the demagogue presuming to speak for everyone. As in “society needs universal health care.” Which of course means: You, the individual, will be forced not only to buy “health care,” but also to “help” provide it to others. Because we – the people who wield legalized physical coercion – have decided this is a value.

          Whether you, the individual, also value it being entirely irrelevant.

    • The following comment is for third parties who are undecided, not Salt, who has made it clear he refuses to listen to clarifications of the NAP.

      Salt writes,
      ““No,” you say, “and I have not shown violence towards you, so get lost as you cannot initiate violence (redress by force) towards me or my property..”

      Salt commits at least two major mistakes.

      1. He falsely equates “initiate violence” with “redress by force.” Redress by force is obvious a response to initiation of violence. Breach of contract is a subset of initiation of violence.

      2. Like orthodox Objectivists, he falsely equates a monopoly with objectivity. He falsely equates a monopoly on the use of force within a given territorial jurisdiction with objective enforcement of the rule of law. He falsely assumes that within a given territory, there can only be one “final authority” that everyone must defer to as the final court of appeal. As regulars here know, that is nonsense that has been demolished in previous lengthy discussions.

      Take the example of two legal disputants, one from Nation B, and one from Nation C, both of whom are living in Nation A. Resolution of such real world legal disputes is handled routinely through negotiation. It does not automatically mean an impasse and violent conflict.

      Substitute PDA B and PDA C for Government B and Government C, and one has achieved non-monopolistic, free market anarchist “law” within Nation A by means of competing PDA, each freely chosen by sovereign individuals.

      • “the rule of law”

        Who wrote “the rule of law”? What is that? Isn’t it “a mean trick used to justify some people ordering others about, taking their stuff… “for the good of society.” Read: For the good of themselves”?

        (objective enforcement of the rule of law) > Isn’t the rule of law a human construct, a rhetorical device? Where is it based in reality that one might objectively consider it?

        “He falsely equates a monopoly on the use of force within a given territorial jurisdiction”

        Did I use that word? Monopoly? Or are you putting words in my mouth I did not use, constructing that which you wish to argue against.

  18. “Well, we know – based on thousands of years of experience – what doesn’t work. You know… “limited” government (i.e., just “some” aggressive violence… for the moment).

    Maybe it’s time to try something different?”

    You’re right. There’s a movement that’s been afoot for some time now. It’s well documented. Some call it the New World Order, One World Government, whatnot. That’s never been tried either.

    Nothing has ever worked for any length of time. Some might point at Iceland’s Allthing but that’s an aberration. I’d say that the first 60 years or so worked pretty well here, yes you’re right about GW. There were a few hiccups. All in all, not to terribly bad.

  19. “I was speaking in relative terms.

    In fact, the average American was better off under the English crown than under the Constitution.

    Read up on Alexander Hamilton and what he and his patron GW did to the rural poor farmers of PA, as one object lesson in “limited” government.”

    Um, okay. How’s the Crown doing today? Any better than us, relatively speaking?

    • What’s going on today is not relevant to the point being discussed, i.e., what the situation was back in the late 18th century for the average American vis-a-vis the government in power at that time.

      The principles articulated in the Declaration (and codified in the Articles of Confederation) were betrayed in secret cabal by men such as Hamilton, who sought to establish – and partially succeeded in establishing – a “robust” central government that had vastly more power over the average person than was exercised over him by the English king and parliament.

    • C’mon, Salt… It’s cool to debate, but tossing out insults isn’t an argument.

      PS: “Progressive” is just another false flag term. Like “Republican” or “liberal.” There is only one valid distinction: Authoritarians vs. non-authoritarians. Those who want to control others – and those who don’t want anyone to control anybody.

      Glenn Beck is a crocodile-tearing fraud, fundamentally no different than Al Franken.

      • I don’t want to control anyone. Neither do I want to be controlled. There are a few things I enjoy doing and I wish to able to do them without someone, for whatever reason, having the ability to stop me simple because they can. See, Eric, I want access to cross the river, unbeholden to anyone’s private property whim, to visit grandma.

        • So, your desire to “visit grandma” trumps the “whim” of the property owner? Gives you the right to force him to hand over his land, or give you access through it, because you regard your needs/wants as being more important someone else’s needs and wants on their own piece of land?

          Think on that, Salt.

          What it implies – and the precedent it sets.

          • I have thought on that, Eric. We’re at an impasse. I currently favor extremely limited government (within the scope of the societal size we have), for reasons I have stated. Nothing you have posited has altered my thinking.

            “because you regard your needs/wants as being more important someone else’s needs and wants”

            That’s a micro (individual) observation. Is there nothing society, at the macro level, needs in order to function?

            • But Salt – what (who?) is “society”? And who presumes to speak for this entity?

              Do you not see the trap?

              Absent the specific consent of every individual, what “society” boils down to is some people presuming to speak for others. No, more than that. It is some people controlling/dictating to other people; people who never gave their consent and, indeed, who object to others presuming to speak for them, to say nothing of controlling them and dictating to them.

              There’s no way to justify this except on the basis of majority rule – or the fiction of “representative” rule – or on the basis of some people just knowing best what’s right… and the rest of us, being dullards, are obliged to obey them.

              All are profoundly, fundamentally at odds with any conception of individual rights.

              Some (like Robert Heinlein) took the position that no one has any rights; that they are a construction of the human brain. Maybe so. But if we do not refrain from doing violence, then we have no business objecting when violence is done unto us.

              That’s what I like best about the NAP: It is rigorously consistent. If one accepts it as the basis for one’s actions, then there is no possible justification (on utilitarian or other grounds) for using force against others, except in cases of self-defense.

              That clarity appeals to me greatly.

  20. “Don’t harm others by your actions. It is the only law a moral individual – and a society composed of moral individuals – needs.” – Eric

    That is a moral issue. I agree. It is not a legal one. It is quite possible for me to violate the voluntary co-operation libertarian principle many espouse and also do no harm. Are you abandoning said voluntary co-operation principle in favor of solely resting on doing no harm?

    “This is a straw man argument, Salt.

    Or do you take the position that no landowners on either side of the length of an entire river would be willing to voluntarily sell/lease land for the purpose of building a bridge?” – Eric

    No strawman there. It’s simply an extreme which fits the voluntary co-operation scenario.

    “Our Republic was nice while it lasted, relatively speaking. But it only lasted for about 60 years – and that’s being generous. Not a very impressive track record.”

    60 years, about right overall; historically speaking. I agree, it was nice while it lasted. How do we fire it up again, since as they say in Maine… “Can’t get there from here.”

    • Hi Salt,

      I’m having trouble understanding what you mean by the following:

      “It is quite possible for me to violate the voluntary co-operation libertarian principle many espouse and also do no harm. Are you abandoning said voluntary co-operation principle in favor of solely resting on doing no harm?”

      It’s not violating anyone else’s rights to decline to cooperate with them – even if it means you don’t obtain something you very much want and may even need.

      Put another way, what you want/need does not impose an obligation enforceable at gunpoint on others to provide it.

      Think, for example, of Obamacare. Supporters claim a “right” to health care (i.e., medical treatment). But what they are really saying is that other people will be forced it provide it to them.

      • “It’s not violating anyone else’s rights to decline to cooperate with them”

        Fine. So in answer to what Eightsouthman was saying, taking access to what’s been declined is not allowed no matter such access does no harm.

        “even if it means you don’t obtain something you very much want and may even need”

        That’s right. Your ability to cross the river is disallowed; you evidently do understand my “taken to extreme” non-strawman point.

        “Put another way, what you want/need does not impose an obligation enforceable at gunpoint on others to provide it.

        Think, for example, of Obamacare. Supporters claim a “right” to health care (i.e., medical treatment). But what they are really saying is that other people will be forced it provide it to them.”

        Here we fail at understanding differences between apples and oranges. It also underscores what has happened to the original meaning and intent of the General Welfare Clause. This is inescapable. What’s lacking is understanding that the founders understood the need for a society to be able to do certain limited things “generally”. Obamacare does not fit that bill in any form as it’s solely special interests at the forced expense of others.

        • How is it apples and oranges, Salt?

          Who gets to decide what constitutes the “general welfare”?

          This benign-sounding phrase needs to be nailed down, specified. What it means, in reality, is that some people – those who control the government – decide what’s in their interests and then impose it by violence on other people.

          In fact, there is no such thing as the “general welfare.” Just as there is no such thing as the “public.” These are rhetorical devices, usually used in a disingenuous way.

          Only individuals have real existence – and each one will have a very different idea as to what constitutes his or her welfare.

          • It was put down but not sufficiently in stone, which would also be problematic as such was understood, being a mindset, at the time. As you said, and I agree, the 60 year run of it. I seriously doubt anyone then believed it could last all that long. The trite sayings allude to such.

            My problem is that such as ~Mises thinking is but another form of Utopian thought. Laudable academically but not practical for facially obvious reasons.

            Some here think I have not considered what they are saying. I have, and I see many holes. The simple fact is, you and I both enjoy being able to, for instance, travel, freely. That is but one aspect where a sole individual, for whatever reason, could deny access to such travel if the rubric of nothing “public” is adhered to. Yes, the word public does connote a meaning. No, such meaning does not include the modern idea that the private (i.e.business) is “public”. Privately I may grant access to Jack while disallowing to Jill.

            “Only individuals have real existence – and each one will have a very different idea as to what constitutes his or her welfare.”

            Quite so. Lets look at one thing. I think, and perhaps I am wrong here, that everyone would agree that the ability to travel, in the general sense, unfettered, unhindered, un-whatever, is one aspect applicable to everyone at large (the public). So I ask, how can such exist where, if private, one can be denied for whatever reason at all?

  21. If you consider Thomas Jefferson a great man. I’m sure you love this guy as well. Barack Obama, holder of the same office, cut from the same cloth as Thomas Jefferson.

    Sit back and enjoy some glad handed fatherly founding. I don’t know what you see in it. It’s bad enough to use the roads and pay the taxes.

    But it’s another thing to have affection for either of these Jeffersons. Et tu, Mystic, Brute?

    Here’s The Obama You Voted For, Not The President You Got

    Hail to the Thomas thru Barack Jeffersons

    Well we’re movin on up,
    Whites Blacks off a boat
    From the east side.
    To a deluxe apartment under a new sky.

    Moo hoovin on up,
    Whites Blacks hosana holler
    With a new pride
    We finally got a piece of the pie.

    Fish don’t fry in old world kitchen;
    Beans don’t burn on a George Foreman grill.
    Took a whole lotta innocents dyin’,
    Just to get us up that capitol hill.

    Now we’re up in the big leagues,
    Gettin’ our turn at bat.
    As long as we live for each other
    It’s you and me baby,
    Ain’t nothin no one
    Can do about that.

    Well we’re movin on up,
    A world shaker from the east side.
    To a deluxe apartment in new order sky.

    Moo hoovin on up,
    Power and force from east side.
    We finally slaughtered us a piece of the pie.

    You statists chimps should comment on the ghetto trash music article with your fellow simians.

    It’s hot number 7 on reddit Great Apes

    • Tor, that was a great song lyric. I can just see the tiny guy dancing to this…..don’t recall his name since that ain’t my shtick.

  22. Eightsouthman, yes… and?

    Is the current state of governorship of the USA that of the founded Republic? The chains that bound have been broken.

    “Government is “mob rule”.”

    I disagree. Lawless government is a form of mob rule. So is democracy in the form we currently practice it. If the government (and We the People) were to actually follow the organic law bankers would be in jail, the welfare state would not exist, the 16th and 17th amendments could not exist, etc.

    We’re following an historical pattern. We’re in the repeat cycle.

    • Dear Salt,

      Any entity that attempts to implement monopoly on the use of force within a defined territory is by that very act, a violator of the non-aggression principle, and morally untenable. Such an entity is better known as “government.”

      You do not express yourself with sufficient precision, so it took a while to figure out where you were coming from. But eventually the pieces came together.

      You are advocating “just government,” aka “constitutionalism and the rule of law.” Sorry, but that bubble was popped long ago. Get with the program.

      • Bevin-

        I think we should consider the fact that sometimes the word “government” can be applied to private PDAs and private arbitrators. I know this isn’t the way the terms are normally used, but some ancaps do use the terms this way. I try to do so as well, because when most people think of “no government” they don’t think just of the absence of the monopoly, but an absence of ANY kind of law, in other words, rapists and murderers can do what they will with no reprecussions. THat’s not actually what any ancap supports, hence why I like to specify that I believe government should be provided on the free market rather than being provided by a monopoly-State.

        Beyond that, I agree with you, and not with Salt, on the issues on which you disagree. But, I’d say I was probably exactly where Salt is at at the beginning of 2013, give or take. Salt is exactly the type of person for which it is worth explaining as much as possible how an ancap society is feasible and how it is both more moral and more practical than statism of any form. I know “but who will build the roads” is an old cliche but in Salt’s case I think he’s sincere. And I could easily see him becomming an ancap very quickly if presented with solid arguments. Let’s present them, rather than just saying “that ship sailed a long time ago”.

        • Dear David,

          I doubt that using the term “government” to describe Private Defense Agencies is worth the conceptual confusion.

          I know what you’re getting at. That’s also the reason I sometimes use the term “conventional monopolistic government.”

          But otherwise I have no real disagreement with the substance of what you said.

          Hopefully “Salt” is willing to take his premises to their logical conclusion — voluntaryism/market anarchism.

        • David, and guess what I have to go do tomorrow? Yep, build those roads. And I have yet to build a road for the govt. I’m not opposed to it since it pays well, actually, much better than building private roads since that is a free market and no one is willing to get taken as say, in building govt. contract roads where the profit is oh soooo good.

        • Dear David, Salt,

          Those who are sincere about wanting a society 100% free of coercion will enjoy this classic, which suggests solutions for the question, “But how will problems be solved without government.”


          Remember, these are merely suggestions. The whole point of liberty is that one cannot predict exactly what solutions will be discovered because of free will.

          The inability to predict exactly what solutions will prevail is not a defect in market anarchism. It is its key virtue. It is a corollary of free will, which is inherently unpredictable.

          The one thing one can predict, by definition, is that the solution will be non-coerced, and will not be the result of goonvermin holding guns to peoples’ heads.

          • PS: Clover has been referred to this book and others repeatedly.

            Yet he persistently pretends that “libertarians have offered no indication as to how they would solve problems without government.”

            “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

          • Bevin wrote, “PS: Clover has been referred to this book and others repeatedly. “…

            I’ll second that.

            I wasted a bunch of time posting links for that dolt (with Lots of details!) only to have them be ignored, and then – As If I Never posted them – I see this: “Then you ask them the details on how things will work and they do not have a clue.”

            Psft, it’s like talking to a child with their fingers in their ears while they chant, “Nah nah nah, I can’t hear you!”

            The problem is, that’s exactly how most of the adults in my locality think too. As a result, it’s clear to see: ““There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

          • Dear helot,

            Another quip comes to mind.

            “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig. ”
            — Robert Heinlein

            The only reason to provide an answer, is to give more objective minded, undecided third parties who are following the debate a chance to make up their own minds.

            So it isn’t necessarily a complete waste. It’s only a complete waste if the debate with clover was one on one and conducted in private.

          • Note to Self: “The only reason to provide an answer, is to give more objective minded, undecided third parties who are following the debate a chance to make up their own minds.

            So it isn’t necessarily a complete waste. It’s only a complete waste if the debate with clover was one on one and conducted in private.”

            .., So, maybe… ‘this guy’, ‘that situation’, and ‘the time it seemed like they wanted to kick my ass for telling them about true liberty’, … wasn’t a waste?

            oh crap! the ‘

          • Dang it! The comment posted before I was done with it.

            Ah well.

            My take away was: the one on one time with ‘this guy’ (guys I talked to in real life) and in private, was a waste of time because i got nothing but flack and disbelief.

            … Lesson learned.

    • Salt, libertarianism is not lawlessness. There are the common unspoken laws nobody needs to define, the NAP or ZAP being one. Everyone should be free to do any damned thing they want as long as they don’t aggress against any other person. It’s not hard to do. It’s damned near impossible though with “government” since that perverted thing must have written laws that become more convoluted constantly.

      For instance, I find you on my land. You have a gun but don’t point it at me. You say ‘Hello, sorry to be on your land but I’m looking for my dog, my wife, my horse or that fellow who hurt me and I’m tracking him. I say Fine, I’ll help you as far as my boundaries and onto my neighbor’s place if I know in advance it would be ok with him(you always seek to have permission with your neighbors for things like this or just to accommodate each other). We don’t go running for someone with a badge nor assume you’re lying. It really isn’t that difficult. I really believe, as most people do, that you can walk, ride your horse or take your vehicle across my land and not harm it. If we didn’t believe that, we’d mostly all be dead. I apologize if I get out of thread on these things since I don’t get the comments I should for whatever reason and can only reload and go back to the page I was previously on. I hope to get this worked out one of these days.

      We’re in a repeat cycle for sure but it’s because of the constitution and subsequent “laws” laid down therein. We’ll always be in the “repeat cycle” as long as anarchy doesn’t prevail and “government”(whatever that happens to mean at the moment)is supreme. Anarchist are simply looking for freedom and not just their own but yours also.

      • I fear most people need “leadership” and “government” because they are mostly unable to think for themselves and endure the consequences.
        It’s not even the thinking that’s the problem – it’s the consequences.

        In a different time, we’d be “barbarians” living on our own. Frontiersman. Night’s Watch, if you will, without the oath. Living on our own, leaving essentially no mark on history – but living FREE. Interacting with others on our own schedules, in our own ways, in mutually beneficial trades. Think, if you will pardon the reference, Charles Ingalls (Little House on the Prarie.) We know of the Wilders / Ingalls only because one daughter became a writer. Same for all the townsfolk, who may or may not have even been real….
        But there were hundreds of thousands of people who lived and died and even made noteworthy contributions, who are lost to history – just in the western settlements.

        Modern world cannot tolerate people living on their own. Remember, they want Information. In formation. IN. FORMATION.
        No Deviations. No divergence.
        Know your role, slave, and keep picking that cotton.

        MOST people are happy with this. Most are herd animals. I wonder if the Neaderthal vs. homo sapiens issue is rearing its ugly head here, also WRT Caine/Abel mythology – maybe there’s more to that? Could be the vegetarian Sapiens was the lunatic, or could be the herder Sapiens was the lunatic? Both heard voices, one comitted murder…. plenty of guessing we could do, even see Caine as a hunter-gatherer, and Abel as the first farmer, per se… ?
        One thing is sure: Caine wanted to be free, Abel wanted to worship autority (and cede all responsibility).

        I guess the war continues….

    • Hi Salt,

      You appear to be a limited government advocate. Which is certainly your right. But, how does one keep government limited? Has this been achieved in prior practice?

      Who is “we” the people?

      I take the position that – as an ethical/moral matter – all aggressive violence must be held in disrepute. If you brook exceptions to this, then how are you any better than any other authoritarian? Is it a matter of degree? Of some ends justifying some means?

      How so?

      • Yes, Eric, I am a proponent of limited government. Very limited government. I’ll not get into the various anarc-? discussions as, given human nature, I think them to be unworkable though useful in understanding any nature of limited government.

        Yes, the problem is in keeping government limited. There are all the time worn phrases of yesteryear we can trot out again. “A Republic, if you can keep it”, “The Constitution was meant for a religious people, unsuitable to any other”, “Once people learn that they can vote themselves monies”, ad nauseum ad infinitum.

        One of the biggest problems we have is that it is said, “We the People”. But it is what it is. There are people who should not have the vote. But I digress here.

        I agree, aggressive violence should be held in disrepute. In a limited government of the type envisioned at the founding, emminent domain for instance, was not aggressive violence for the simple fact that what was done by way of ED was contractual. (Being forced to adhere to one’s contracts is anything but improper.) One can also apply that to highly limited state functions.

        Many argue that they never signed onto the Contract that was the Constitution. That is an arguable premise, especially since what we have is not THAT contract.

        I understand what you all are saying. As an exercise I do not disagree as to theory. In practicality I see it as unworkable. I’m still waiting to see how you, Eric, are going to cross the Mississippi when all access has been denied you. That scenario fits within the framework of voluntary co-operation, being that one is not required to co-operate; access denied.

        ” We don’t go running for someone with a badge nor assume you’re lying. It really isn’t that difficult. I really believe, as most people do, that you can walk, ride your horse or take your vehicle across my land and not harm it.” – Eightsouthman

        Irrelevant. Access denied. In case you do not comprehend it, the only way you access crossing without violating anyone’s property rights is that the land in question is 1) not private or 2) permission granted. Here I’ll say it again, access denied. The fact that you could cross without harming it is not sufficient to grant permission to do so against the wishes of the owner. It’s irrelevant that you cross non-violently simply because your crossing against my wishes violates your own principle of voluntary co-operation. There’s nothing voluntary on my part.

        “Any entity that attempts to implement monopoly on the use of force within a defined territory is by that very act, a violator of the non-aggression principle, and morally untenable. Such an entity is better known as “government.” – Bevin

        Defined territory? Like my private property along the river? So it’s morally untenable for me to defend, even with violence, that which is private? And you accuse me of lacking “sufficient precision”. I laugh.

        • Hi Salt,

          I used to be a limited government advocate myself. Until I realized it’s oxymoronic – and untenable (as history has repeatedly demonstrated).

          Principles matter. If one accepts the principle that a majority however constituted or delegated may simply vote away a man’s property or his liberty, then the only thing preventing the wholesale rescinding of every man’s liberty is the momentary cultural feeling of the mob (and its representatives) that “this” is acceptable, but “that” is not.


          For the moment.

          The elegance of the NAP is its universality; it’s symmetry. You have either committed an act of aggression – or you have not.
          Very easy to define – and very hard to gainsay.

          Our Republic was nice while it lasted, relatively speaking. But it only lasted for about 60 years – and that’s being generous. Not a very impressive track record.

          And, why?

          Because the Constitution – “limited” government – contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

          I fully appreciate that a society based on the NAP may be a long way off; but I keep vigil and hope that – someday – people will learn to live together without violence. Or at least, most of them will do so.

          The rest? We can throw ’em in the woods!

          • It’s unfortunate, but some “minarchists” are so blindly attached to minarchism that their psychological attitude differs little from that of clovers. For example, the orthodox Objectivists at the Ayn Rand Institute.

            One would think they would be “on our side.” Unfortunately their attitude is one of obdurate closed-mindedness. There is simply no getting through to them.

            When I was a minarchist, I at least hoped that anarchism was workable, and kept searching for logical proof and historical evidence that it might be. Eventually I found it. As Eric and others have testified, they had similar experiences.

            Sad to say some minarchists are not like that. As I have noted before, in any given era, the percentage of people with the capacity to break out of the era’s Conventional Wisdom is always vanishingly small.

            Most intellectuals in any given era, assume that had they lived in the past, they would have been free thinking radicals. Under monarchy, they would have been republicans. Under slavery, they would have been abolitionists. It would be nice to think so, but they flatter themselves.

            The proof of this is what they cling to today, in the here and now. They refuse to jettison government in toto. They feel compelled to cling to some remnant of it, the way constitutional monarchs felt compelled to cling to monarchy.

          • Dear helot,

            You know how clover deliberately misunderstands what you do your best to explain to him?

            Well guess what? Clover attitudes are definitely not confined only to hardcore statists. Even softcore statists, aka champions of “very limited government” can be clovers too, at least in their emotional makeup, if not their ideology.

            I think I reached my limit. I’m now at the “Never teach a pig to sing” point.

        • Dear Salt,

          Limited government is sort of like “only a few e-coli bacteria in your food.”

          Left to its own, it invariably multiplies and takes over. Your “very limited government” of 1776 over time must become the police state of 2014.

          The reason why is simple. Your “very limited government” is “very limited brute force coercion.” As long as you legitimize brute force coercion, it doesn’t matter if it starts out “very limited.” Over time what matters is that it is what it is. Brute force coercion. Once legitimized people will invariably say, “Well why not a little more?’

          This is why “very limited government” eventually becomes “very unlimited government.” It’s not a question of whether. It’s only a question of when.


          • “This is why “very limited government” eventually becomes “very unlimited government.” It’s not a question of whether. It’s only a question of when.” – Bevin

            That’s historically true. Your idea of society, being of the scale we must currently deal with, though laudable in many respects, is not viable due to human nature. Yours is of theory, academic, and not realistic beyond, perhaps, tribal in nature. I do not find application of what you seem to profess to be, using history to guide, feasible.

            • Well, we know – based on thousands of years of experience – what doesn’t work. You know… “limited” government (i.e., just “some” aggressive violence… for the moment).

              Maybe it’s time to try something different?

          • Everything, for Salt, seems to hinge on a bridge being built across a river.

            I guess he’s never heard of Greed or Desire?

            As in, some greedy bastard who owns riverfront property would desire the things the money would buy, the money he would be given by private developers wanting to build a bridge.

            I mean, Salt might not want to open his land up for a bridge, but there’s no doubt other land-owners would. The more there were people like Salt, the higher the price would go,… and riverfront property ain’t that valuable to begin with.

            And, there’s no tellin’, but it’s quite likely the heirs to the property Salt owns would have no desire to hold onto the river front property like he does. In my experience, more often than not, the heirs practically give away what the prior owner saw as priceless.

            in the meantime, so a bridge doesn’t get built, so what?
            The owners of ‘The Great Canadian Road Up and Around The Mississippi River’ might enjoy the extra business?

            Judging by history, i.e. the widespread use of river ferries carrying cargo and boot-liquor, some river-front property owner somewhere is going to want to cash in and make more use out of their property that way, than what they can through any other way or from simple “enjoyment of the view”.

            Salt seems to take the view he would speak for All river-front property owners. In my town, near the most developed high-priced residential sub-divisions, there’s a hold-out or two who didn’t want to sell their land to the land developers when the expansion took place. That’s fine. It’s an old farmhouse in the middle of a sea of upper-class houses. There’s always someone who wants to turn down a profit. No problem. Civilization just builds around them and passes them on by. Plenty of others will sell where those like Salt won’t. It’s always been like that. I’m surprised Salt cannot/or will not see that.

          • Oh wait. I made a mistake. It seems that everything for Salt hinges on maintaining an empire. It’s the Only “feasible” way.


            …”is not viable due to human nature” says who? The man behind the curtain?

        • Dear Salt,

          Defined territory? Like my private property along the river? So it’s morally untenable for me to defend, even with violence, that which is private? And you accuse me of lacking “sufficient precision”. I laugh.


          It is pretty clear now that you have no real interest in verifying whether your “limited government” beliefs are internally consistent or historically feasible.

          So be it.

            • Hi Salt,

              I was speaking in relative terms.

              In fact, the average American was better off under the English crown than under the Constitution.

              Read up on Alexander Hamilton and what he and his patron GW did to the rural poor farmers of PA, as one object lesson in “limited” government.

        • Salt, I used to have a pipeline across my place, the Koch boys to be exact. They abused their privileges via a previous contract. When we negotiated another, I named a price they weren’t willing to pay. They could have claimed ED and I would have screwed them royally since it’s MY county, my neighbors, etc. They’re not stupid by any means, much more cunning than me so they simply asked the neighbor across the road who went for their price. Pipeline was subsequently turned to a 90 degree and taken across the road to parallel what was their previous path. Since that time there have been two major breaks in that pipeline and I haven’t been the injured party(if you say that the travel of water isn’t germane to being injured). Well, at least it wasn’t my land contaminated. I work in the patch so I know just a few things, like why a pipeline only a few years old would fail. It’s called not taking care of business properly. I’m amazed any welder(certified)would be at fault so I can only assume the design was the culprit. I’ve watched huge amount of equipment hauled in to rapidly cover these big spills since 99% of liability is having it documented. I suppose I didn’t do my duty in not calling the Railroad Commission and creating a stink but I don’t recognize the RRC as being the sole entity to solve these problems. Just this past year I saw a lot of trucks near my fence boundary and found the problem was still ongoing. They were waiting for a trackhoe of a certain size since the line was deep enough to be beyond the scope of a backhoe. I gave them a company card and told them we’d be happy to supply the equipment and labor both to fix the rupture. Of course it was being handled by another company but I just had to rub it in a bit.

          My point? There is no such thing as the inability to cross “somewhere” since someone will always be willing to grant access at some price.

          I’d like to point out a problem with your hypothesis to crossing the Ms. river. Somebody, somewhere will sell that access. As far as crossing the river itself, I can easily build a machine that not only can cross the river but cross the land after getting to the other bank.

          Your premise doesn’t “hold water”. Someone, somewhere, for some price will always be willing to accommodate you. This is what we call the free market and it works quite well.


          • Dear 8sm,

            Thanks yet again for another amazingly informative share.

            You and a few other regulars here have a wealth of down and dirty, nitty gritty, real world experience that I am embarrassed to admit I lack, as a life long white collar office worker a la “Office Space.”

            Thanks so much, yet again.

          • Dear 8sm,

            “This is what we call the free market and it works quite well.”

            Amen to that! Amen to that!

            It never ceases to amaze me how little real confidence many culturally conservative minarchists actually have in the free market, when push comes to shove.

            They find it so easy to jettison the free market, i.e., FREEDOM PER SE, at the drop of a hat. This exposes their fundamental lack of commitment to freedom as such, and their attachment to their real sacred cow, the status quo and “tradition.”

  23. Yeah, Las Vegas is part of Greater Los Angeles Metro unfortunately. Not much to be done about that.

    It’s funny, I can spot a recent day-trippin arrival from Cali from a long ways off. They have this glazed look like they’re rats in a maze and there are only seconds to spare before they lose their last chance to find the cheese.

    They’re always scurrying about, making themselves and everyone miserable, always demanding all manner of things from anyone who within earshot who’ll listen.

    A Las Vegan just looks at them quizzical like, with zero comprehension. Calm down Algernon. It’s a fucking maze, there’s no way out. We’ve already tried. Find the cheese or don’t find the cheese, it makes no difference.

    You’re already in the midst of the hottest driest seventh circle of hell son, no use getting yourself all worked up over it.

    You Will Hate Fridays In Hell

    One day a guy dies and finds himself in hell. As he is wallowing in despair, he has his first meeting with the devil…

    Satan: Why so glum?
    Guy: What do you think? I’m in hell!

    Satan: Hell’s not so bad. We actually have a lot of fun down here. Are you a drinking man?
    Guy: Sure, I love to drink.

    Satan: Well you’re gonna love Mondays then. On Mondays that’s all we do is drink. Whiskey, tequila, Guinness, wine coolers, diet tab and colas. We drink till we throw up and then we drink some more! And we don’t worry about getting a hangover because you’re dead anyway.
    Guy: Gee, that sounds great!

    Satan: You a smoker?
    Guy: You better believe it!
    Satan: All right! You’re gonna love Tuesdays. We get the finest cigars from all over the world and smoke our lungs out. If you get cancer no biggie, you’re already dead, remember?
    Guy: Wow… that’s awesome!

    Satan: I bet you like to gamble.
    Guy: Why yes, as a matter of fact I do.
    Satan: Cause Wednesdays you can gamble all you want. Craps, Blackjack, Roulette, Poker, Slots. If you go bankrupt… you’re dead anyhow. Do you do drugs??

    Guy: Are you kidding? I love drugs! You don’t mean… Satan: That’s right! Thursday is drug day. Help yourself to a great big bowl of crack, or smack. Smoke a doobie the size of a submarine. You can do all the drugs you want, you’re dead, who cares.
    Guy: WOW! I never realized Hell was such a cool place!

    Satan: You gay? You into forced rape and sodomy?
    Guy: No…
    Satan: Ooooh, well you’re gonna hate Fridays then.

  24. I have no problem with emminent domain where used appropriately. I also have no problem with extremely limited government. Roads? I disagree with those who profess that roads could all be private. To many property owners, to many chiefs. Couple that with free association, which I agree with, and travel might be problematic for some.

    But as to ED, anyone remember KELO?

    The problem most libertarians have with government is its use of force. Do this “or else”. Most libertarians I know have no problem with government as it was prior to the advent of the screaming liberal progressive (i.e. Clover); prior to forced bussing, the ERA, numerous fed agencies covering everything, etc. We don’t need government to tell us how to work it out among ourselves.

    The problem today is that even the small, petty bureaucratic bullshit (drivers license, car registration, etc) we have to put up with has become intolerable simply because we are burned out… its all gotten way to much. Can’t even fly to St. Louis on depreciating dollars without being groped, let alone criticize Obama without being labeled racist.

    Progressivism is doing us all in.

    • libertarians believe that it is immoral to initiate violence against another person or his property. Some libertarians are very “small tent” about this and say that if you aren’t completely consistent about this axiom, you aren’t a libertarian. Others are more “big tent” and will say that anyone who generally supports this axiom, or even anyone who wants a far smaller government, qualifies as libertarian.

      I’m more “big tent” myself, with the one exception being that I do not acknowledge “pro-war” libertarians as being libertarian. I do draw the line at that one issue, because it is so broad and has a huge effect on every other policy. So, if a person is not a non-interventionist, I do not consider him a libertarian.

      But, other than that, I’m generally “big tent” when it comes to smaller issues, and I don’t say that someone has to dot every i and cross every t before I will consider them part of the libertarian movement.

      So, some libertarians are OK with government roads and “appropriate” eminent domain, but the most consistent libertarians most certainly are not. And I think being OK with those things logically leads to more and more progressivist statist positions.

    • Hi Salt,

      Ah, but who gets to decide what constitutes “appropriate”? What if the owner of the property disagrees?

      One can make various utilitarian arguments: That new road will make it easier/faster to get from Here to There; that new development will bring more economic activity to the community, etc.

      Maybe so. But if we go down this road – accepting that it’s “appropriate” to take people’s property away from them when there’s a “good reason” (as defined by those wielding political power) then Clover has won; we’ve given him carte blanche. Everything becomes contingent on what Clovers consider to be “appropriate” – as opposed to the right of you or me or anyone else to be free from the threat of legalized violence that we’re legally unable to defy or defend ourselves against.

      So, no thanks.

      I’d rather the roads not be so great; that the new shopping center not get built… if it means trampling over my fellow man to get it done.

      • My problem with all things private is in the nature of all things to free association. Do you not understand that there are some people who would not be able to make it grandma’s for Sunday dinner?

        You’ve fallen into Clover’s trap, Eric, into the chaos of no government. See, I own a bit of that land along the river and no bridge shall ever be built upon it. No road shall even pass through any of it. The land is private, it is mine. I know everyone who owns the land along the river and they all agree with me. The Mississippi shall never have a bridge over it.

        What road(s), Eric?

        • As a resident of Nevada, I heartily support any political system that prevents any more East Coast people from crossing the Mississippi river.

          I also support land owners denying the right of aircraft from the East Coast to fly over the Mississippi delta airspace and flying here.

          • That’s the spirit 🙂 Tor. Keeps Californians from coming to NC too. Doesn’t answer the question, though. Yes, I’m sure some will say I’m being absurd. But as to what Eric wants it is theoretically arguable.

            The problem isn’t with ED. It’s with the corruption of the General Welfare Clause.

            • Hi Salt,

              The problem is this notion that it’s ok for some people to simply take other people’s property for some “good cause” – as they see it- because they think the ends justify the means.

              If this doctrine is accepted, at first it will be exercised only for ends that seem “appropriate” to most people (which still doesn’t make it right) such as right-of-ways for roads and so on. But once the principle has been established that it’s ok to simply shove a gun under someone’s chin and order – give it up! – you have signed the death warrant of individual liberty. Before you know it, “appropriate” becomes for-profit fuuuuhhhhhhhttttttttttball stadiums, high-rise condo developments … and so on. And there’s no principled way to argue against such takings because “appropriate” is entirely subjective. What Clover considers appropriate is what becomes appropriate – and that’s the end of that.

          • Not at all.

            Eric, as per the scenario I posited above as no bridge across the Mississippi… cross it in your car if you can.

            ” What Clover considers appropriate is what becomes appropriate – and that’s the end of that.”

            Only if one allows Clover to acquire such power. Jefferson had a thought about that.

            • This is a straw man argument, Salt.

              Or do you take the position that no landowners on either side of the length of an entire river would be willing to voluntarily sell/lease land for the purpose of building a bridge?

              I think what you’re really saying amounts to: We want to run the bridge through here (read, your land) and our convenience matters more than inconveniencing you. So, we’re just going to take your land. But we’ll pay you what we decide is a “fair” amount.


              And, regardless, your argument is utilitarian – not moral. Even if it meant I could not cross the river, I’d still prefer that to endorsing aggressive violence to facilitate my convenience.

              On Jefferson: A man I admire. But he set some awful precedents (and proved himself a hypocrite) by taking unilateral, extra-Constitutional action with regard to the Louisiana Purchase, among other things.

              It’s hard to be a little bit pregnant. And if one is pregnant, the natural result will be a child. The fact that it doesn’t show much at say eight weeks, or cry and want to have its diapers changed, doesn’t mean those things aren’t coming.

              Just so, “limited” government inevitably becomes not-so-limited.

              Look around you, if you want proof.

          • The problem with Clover is not that he’s right about a need of being a lawful country, it’s that he applauds the laws he does. He holds up roads as an example and in the same breath applauds forced government [insert here]. He dishonestly equates unequals. He applauds emminent domain but what of Kelo? He’s of the new covenant, the Entitlement Welfare Clause of the Special Interests.

            I prefer not to live in total anarchy. My opinion here, but such lawlessness is governed by might makes right. Such is a form of mob rule and hardly a bright light of Liberty.

            • Hi Salt,

              There is only one law worth respecting: Don’t harm others by your actions. It is the only law a moral individual – and a society composed of moral individuals – needs.

              The rest is piffle. Legalisms. Man-made constructs, usually euphemizing aggressive violence in the name of some people’s notion of the “greater good.”

              Eminent domain is the classic case in point.

              You mentioned previously something along the lines of getting to granny’s house for dinner. The question is not granny’s convenience. It is whether “granny” is ethically/morally entitled to deploy violence against other people in order to force them to accommodate her needs.

              I say she’s not.

          • Salt, in your words “My opinion here, but such lawlessness is governed by might makes right. Such is a form of mob rule and hardly a bright light of Liberty.” And that’s how I view government. mob rule carried out by those who profit by making sure someone is a victim in every situation. Government is “mob rule”. Anarchy is just the opposite. Every definition of anarchy I’m aware of would say I’m right. But government, and esp. democracy are nothing more or less than mob rule. Sure, they pay those without intellect or conscience to decide and enforce. I always thought George Bush the little was a perfect demonstration of government by democracy when he said “Dammit, I’m the decider”. You can certainly have him and all his minions while the rest of the world waits for them and their kind to be gone so the rest of us can live in peace. Badges, I don’t need no stinkin badges.

  25. The question is, what is our guiding normative ethics percept?

    I think it distills down rather nicely to this secularized catechism: “Render unto X what is X’s.”

    Now lets plug in a few variables and test this out.

    Where X is Eric? Eric should be dealt with full respect and care. He endeavors and largely succeeds to be self-sufficient, to take nothing from others by force. In some measure he earns his living by dealing directly with nature and reality, and not the artificial social cooperation matrix at all. He has made great effort to be above reproach.

    Where X is Cantwell? Cantwell speaks only for himself. One can argue being a cop is an initiation of violence. But our response should be proportional. [Cantwell mocking response to that idea: it isn’t self defense unless massa is whipping you ]

    Where X is Tor? Tor’s behavior is aggressively outlandishly pro-freethought. It appears he’s here in a capacity outside his real life, and that no one is reading any of this nor connecting it to him personally. He’s taking advantage of the internet’s inherent consequence-free safe harbor and not confining himself to his state issued monolithic slave identity. Take the gloves off and treat him as you will.

    Where X is David? David’s support for the NAP is to be taken at face value. He’s given no reason to suspect him of hypocrisy. His religiosity can make you skeevish, but ideally all should agree to keep one’s eccentricities to themselves, and least, not impose them on unwilling others. Then everything’s cool.

    [I hear you and am trying, but would argue I’m not a single human here, but rather a cluster of running schticks. My violations of this otherwise reasonable idea, are a necessary part of my raison d’être for even being on the internet as a game-changing internet pseudo-troll.]

    Where X is the regular guy? I say the real trolls, are the ones who ALWAYS keep calm and carry on as if nothing is wrong. I don’t ask anything specific. But for purposes of posting here, at least ONCE IN A WHILE make the effort to think harder, think outside the box, speak to the root of the matter, speak from hard nosed reality, or in some way show you’re one of us and you’re trying to elevate your efforts in your own way on occasion.

    Where X is a brutal predator in authority? No more care than you would give to a dangersous feral domesticated animal in your presence. You wouldn’t go out of your way to harm them. But you wouldn’t make much effort to get involved with them, should they need your help.
    – – – –

    Virtue ethics, advocated by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions. – These are fighting words, avoid using them unless you’re able to “keep everything cool.”

    Inverted Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering first that human beings have absolute, natural rights to their own lives.
    Only secondarily or not at all should we factor in our duties and others’ rights as promulgated by the state.
    We deny being a signatory to any sort of social contract, unless we explicitly consent.

    Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action’s outcome or result. Consequentialist theories, which differ in what they consider valuable, have been widely disparaged and discredited here, including the following:

    Utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people.

    State consequentialism holds that an action is right if it leads to state welfare, through order, material wealth, and population growth

    Egoism, the belief that the moral person is the self-interested person, holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self. (Personally I accept a limited version of this for as many as a society can bear, but the consensus here is NAP is the highest standard)

    Situation Ethics, which holds that the correct action is the one that creates the most loving result, and that love should always be the goal.

    Intellectualism dictates that the best action is the one that best fosters and promotes knowledge.

    Welfarism argues that the best action is the one that most increases economic well-being or welfare.

    Preference utilitarianism holds that the best action is the one that leads to the most overall preference satisfaction.

    Pragmatic ethics argues that moral correctness evolves similarly to scientific knowledge: socially over the course of many lifetimes. Thus, we should prioritize social reform over concern with consequences, individual virtue, or duty .

  26. Eric, can you post Clover’s pic? You know, the one of the BOX OF ROCKS!

    “I pay. If you do not want a government telling you that you need to pay then how are you planning on paying?” – Clover

    Clover, do you actually read what you write before hitting post? I won’t try correcting it or try and parse out what you’re trying(?) to get at, I’m laughing to hard.

    • Hi Salt,

      I have tried for years to get Clover to ‘fess up. To give his (her?) real name, what it does for a living – and so on. He/she/it steadfastly refuses.

      Clover is at bottom a pussy.

      He loves violence, but only when it’s anonymous and done by proxies on his behalf.

      So it’s no surprise he hasn’t got the guts to even use his real name.

      • If Clover is young enough, Clover is to experience the shattering of Leftist ideology as the historical reality of the Math again rhymes. I disagree, as Clover fears violence and as such relies upon others on his behalf. Clover does not hate it. Libertarians do hate it which is why we prefer voluntary co-operation. Unlike Clover, we do not fear it.

        What Clover hates are those capable of self-relience, being those who would bring it home to Clover directly and not by proxy. Clover totally misunderstands the libertarian mindset, believing libertarians to be violent in the first order and not comprehending that libertarians are reactionary; start nothing, end everything.

        • CloverSalt I understand libertarians. Half of them here have said it is fine to kill others if they are stopped for a traffic stop. Pretty much all of them say it is fine to kill if they are trying to take him in to jail. Then there are those that say it is fine to kill someone who is taking part of their property for eminent domain, the power of the state to take private property for public use with payment of compensation to the owner, to put in needed things like roads, power lines, gas pipelines and water lines etc. Yes and libertarians are stupid not realizing that without such things Eric would not have a job, I would not have a job and pretty much everyone here would not have a job or a house to live in.
          Then libertarians say things like we need to get rid of all government and all taxes. The system would be pay as you go. Then you ask them the details on how things will work and they do not have a clue.

          Yes Salt, libertarians are not only violent they are also stupid.

          • Actually, Clover, not one Libertarian posting here has advocated any such thing. We’ve merely pointed out that it’s wrong for anyone – whether wearing a special costume or not – to commit aggressive violence. Whereas you feel it’s ok for people wearing special costumes to commit aggressive violence. And not ok to resist such aggression.

            And: While you would not have a job – government “work” having been rendered obsolete – people doing productive work would be fine.

            Be honest with us, Clover: Have you ever worked an honest day in your life? Meaning, done work that someone actually freely consented to pay for?

          • Clover,

            “What’s ya gonna do
            What’s ya gonna do
            What’s ya gonna do
            When they come for you…”

            The only thing I find of value with you Clover is that you are entertaining. Kinda like Rosie O’Donnel with a spoon and a quart of ice cream.

          • CloverEric I really doubt without government and without eminent domain that you would have a road to your house and electricity to your house. There definitely would never have been internet access to allow you to have what you call a business.

            Eric do you call writing lies for a living an honest day of work?

            • That’s right. Clover. Absent government force, people would never figure out how to satisfy their needs and wants. It’s just too complicated.

              Kind of like explaining how a fuel injected engine makes more torque than an otherwise identical engine with a carburetor.

              Right, Clover?

          • Clover, if there is a person who deserves to suffer at the hands of central planning, at the hands of crony capitalists, it’s you.

            The fact that you cannot conceive of other ways of doing things simply exposes how addled and crippled your mind is.

      • Basically, Clover’s attitude seems to be “I’ve got mine, no flies on me!” The pile of beaten and bloody corpses that the State routinely leaves in its wake are of no concern to him as long as it’s to his own benefit.

        • CloverJason Flinders you are a joke. You say that the government is the evil one killing all my neighbors? No Jason. The government that we have is trying to make you drive safer, trying to get drunks off the road, trying to make vehicles safer, trying to make cars more fuel efficient so that we are not dependent on guys like Putin. Jason those things save lives, those things reduce injuries. It is Libertarians who are tying to kill people. Libertarians have killed more people in the United States than our government has over the past 100 years.

          • Clover,

            All your statements are – truly – marvels of Cloverific “thought” . . .but this one is the pick of the litter:

            “Libertarians have killed more people in the United States than our government has over the past 100 years.”

            What can one say?

          • Clover,

            The government that we have is trying to make you drive safer, trying to get drunks off the road, trying to make vehicles safer, trying to make cars more fuel efficient so that we are not dependent on guys like Putin.

            Do you mean like this fine officer not wearing his seatbelt?

            Or do you mean like this fine officer that does not understand the law he is accusing another of breaking?

            Or do you mean like these fine law abiding offficers of the state.

            Is this the type of efficient government that you are promoting?

            Government would never let unsafe things come to the marketplace. (would they?)

            Police would never drive in an unsafe manner.

            Stefan Molyneux on the violence of the state.

            While not all in government are bad, government is similar to a barrel of apples. It only takes a few bad apples to cause the whole barrel of apples to go bad.

          • Clover’s line is simply absurd. States have killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone. I don’t know how many people libertarians have killed, but I know it isn’t anywhere near that. But, what makes this even worse is that libertarians are anti-collectivist, so you have to deal with each of us individually. I have never killed anyone.

            For what its worth, I think its useful to make a distinction between “government” and “the State.” “government” broadly defined is an organization that settles disputes and punishes crime. The State, by contrast, is an organized monopoly on crime. So, “government” can sometimes be justified, but the State cannot.

          • eric, mith, it just boggles the mind that some cannot for the life of them and everyone else get the idea of government. Govern, to control, ment, i.e., the institution of such. So who gets to control? I ain’t up for it, not in any way, shape or form. If a person violates the NAP then whoever wants to address what they’ve done has the “right”. If no one else has a good objection, then that person who steals or injures or steals is verily at the mercy of those who would strive to right the wrong. You don’t need a badge nor “authoritah” to nab someone who steals or hurts someone. That person has given up his right to any process that doesn’t necessarily deprive him of more than he deprived others. If that person has intentionally killed, that person can expect someone, anyone to deal with him as the surviving victims kin or friends see fit. It ain’t perfect but bureaucrats and cops are many decimal places past the imperfection of that. I believe we all can see where this leads. My murderer is at the mercy of those who would seek recourse and what ever decision they decide on. You don’t always get to pick and choose. In Lonesome Dove, Jake didn’t commit any murders but he still ran with the crew that did. He knew when he fell in with them he should part but he was scared and didn’t. There is no “perfect” system, no perfect people…..but the most imperfect thing going is government.

            Now I know some people think because I’m a Texan I’m a hard-ass and there’s no way I could prove to you I’m not. I am a damned sight fairer than those Christian soldiers that some seem to want to see continue “onward”. Thanks, but I’ll take an agnostic any old day before someone with “conviction”.

            And that brings me to the court system. Nowdays the last thing a prosecutor wants is an impartial jury, especially a jury of “peers”. My two cents thanks.

      • I’d bet money that clover posts on sites like this one for a living. There is evidence that the government pays people to troll websites, and I suspect that is what clover is paid for.

        • Wouldn’t surprise me either, David.

          I don’t think clover can be reached to engage in any kind of argument.

          It’s probably a waste of effort, but the first step might be to get clover to even consider the possibility the state is the greatest murderer and predator ever to have existed.

          Anarchy, State, and Objectivism

          Dostoevsky wrote that “Without God, anything is possible.” This epigram assumes that religion, faith, and the threat of divine punishment provide the only effective limits to human behavior — that if individuals did not have faith in certain divinely-ordained rules, they would run amok.

          Is there not a similar view of government? We could paraphrase Dostoevsky by stating: “Without government, anything is possible.” The assumption here is that government force is the only thing that keeps people in line — that if individuals were not forced to abide by certain rules, they would run amok.

          Beneath both of these views lies a further assumption: that human beings are inherently violent and irrational.

          Anarchy 101

          Anarchism is an idea about the best way to live. Anarchy is a way of living.

          Anarchism is the idea that government (the state) is unnecessary and harmful. Anarchy is society without government. Anarchists are people who believe in anarchism and desire to live in anarchy as all our ancestors once did. People who believe in government (such as liberals, conservatives, socialists and fascists) are known as “statists.”

          It might sound like anarchism is purely negative — that it’s just against something. Actually, anarchists have many positive ideas about life in a stateless society. But, unlike Marxists, liberals and conservatives, they don’t offer a blueprint.

          • Tor, I guess I should have read this post before I commented. But we’re saying the same thing aren’t we? I’m not as prolific but I haven’t had enough BEER. I’m being thwarted today and it’s taking up my laughably non-valuable time. I keep trying to catch supper, a catfish or two, and it seems like I can only feed the turtles, damn their eyes.

          • “But, unlike Marxists, liberals and conservatives, they don’t offer a blueprint.”

            Because they can’t. Anarchy does not allow for it.

            “Actually, anarchists have many positive ideas about life in a stateless society.”

            Such as?

            • Hi Salt,

              Anarchy does not “offer” a “blueprint” – and that’s the beauty of it.

              Each individual is free to design and execute their own “blueprint” – whatever it might be – with the only limitation placed on that being the injunction: Harm no one else along the way.

              I’m sick of “blueprints” being foisted on me by others, who are afflicted by the sick idea that they have the right to direct the course of my life.

        • Likely. If Clover really is as dense as she appears, I would be surprised. In fact, anyone that dense would not be able to find or post to an online forum.

  27. 7 Psychopaths – *SPOILER* (more like helper really)

    Two hitmen, Tommy (Michael Stuhlbarg) and Larry (Michael Pitt), are having a discussion about shooting people in the eyes, considering they are sent to kill their employer’s girlfriend.

    With their backs turned, they don’t see a figure in a red ski mask come from behind them and shoot them both in the head. The figure throws two Jack of Diamonds cards on their corpses.

    We meet Marty (Colin Farrell) waking up to hear a message asking when he’ll be done with his next screenplay. Downstairs, his girlfriend Kaya (Abbie Cornish) is doing yoga until Marty’s friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) comes in.

    After she leaves, the two of them go watch a movie, and Marty asks Billy how the dog kidnapping business; is going, but Billy prefers to think of it as; dog-borrowing;

    We see a scenario in which Billy and his partner Hans (Christopher Walken) are looking for a dog to swipe. They take a basset hound from a young blond woman, and as soon as she puts up posters searching for her dog, Hans goes to her house, returns the dog, and collects reward money.

    We see that Hans is using this money to help his ailing wife Myra with her cancer treatment. She is aware of his business and wants him to take an honest job, preferably in government (Hans points out the irony).

    Marty and Billy are out drinking while Marty complains about not being able to finish his script, titled; Seven Psychopaths.

    Billy gets out an article he read in a newspaper of the Jack o’ Diamonds Killer; who kills high-ranking members of the mafia. Marty likes the idea and writes it down. Billy asks to help with writing the film, but Marty doesn’t respond.

    At home, Marty is trying to come up with his second psychopath after the Jack o’ Diamonds Killer. He comes up with a story that we see of a Quaker man whose daughter is killed.

    The killer feels guilty and turns himself in. He asks for execution but is given a 27-year sentence. In prison, the killer becomes religious, and through time, he proves he is a changed man and is released early.

    However, he becomes haunted by the presence of the Quaker man. Eventually, he goes mad and decides to end his life, because he knows there is a place in Hell for him if he commits suicide.

    He slits his throat as he watches the Quaker standing outside his window, but the Quaker takes out a razor of his own and slits his own throat so the killer can see.

    Kaya throws a party sometime later, and Marty is retelling his story to an amused crowd. Billy says he helped write it, but Marty, very drunk, rudely tells him off.

    Marty wakes up on Billy’s couch with a Shih Tzu on him. Billy tells Marty that Kaya threw him out because he called her a fucking bitch. He calls her to confirm the truth.

    We meet Charlie Costello (Woody Harrelson) aka ;PSYCHOPATH NO. 3; interrogating Sharice (Gabourey Sidibe) over the disappearance of his dog Bonny (the same dog in Billy’s place).

    She is scared shitless, trying to tell him that the dog was just taken when her back was turned. One of Charlie’s guys, Dennis, tells him that there were a noted number of dog kidnappings in the area, and Charlie orders his guys to get the dog back, and he lets Sharice go.

    We cut to a motel room where a Vietnamese priest (PSYCHOPATH NO. 4) is sitting on a bed as a hooker enters the room (semi-important later). He mentions wanting to kill all American citizens over their involvement in the Vietnam War.

    In thee dog warehouse where Billy and Hans keep their dogs, Marty discovers an ad Billy took out in the newspaper asking other self-proclaimed psychopaths to call and help Marty find inspiration. He is NOT happy about this.

    Dennis and Al (another goon of Charlie’s) stalk Hans and capture him, having him lead them to the warehouse to find Bonny. They barge in and aim a gun at a frightened Marty, but soon after, the Jack o’ Diamonds killer enters and shoots Dennis and Al, then drops the playing cards on their bodies and leaves.

    Marty and Hans go into Billy’s home as Marty is covered in blood and puke. Hans informs Billy of the situation, and they determine that their kidnapped dog belongs to a dangerous man (it also helps that Bonny’s dog tag reads; If lost, return to Charlie Costello or you will fucking die). They go to a bar and try to figure out what to do.

    Marty and Billy go back to Billy’s place and find an old man with a rabbit waiting outside for them. His name is Zachariah Rigby (Tom Waits), and he wants to tell his story.

    Marty gets him some tea as he recounts his tale – he and a black woman, Maggie, started a romance in their youth as they went around the country killing off other serial killers.

    They get a man who stalks them in their car by dousing him with acid, lighting him on fire, and shooting him. They also behead a man in an asylum. When they arrive to them home of a hippie (noted as being the Zodiac Killer), Zachariah failed to assist her in the killing because he was more preoccupied with a rabbit that is almost splashed with gasoline as Maggie is about to light the hippie on fire.

    As he burns to a crisp in his home, Maggie breaks it off with Zachariah, leaving him heartbroken. After he finishes his story, he asks Marty to include a message to Maggie during the credits of his film, letting her know he still loves her. Marty agrees. As Zachariah leaves, Marty lists him and Maggie as Psychopaths No. 5 and 6.

    Charlie goes to look for Hans’s wife at the hospital, not knowing she is black and assuming she is not in the room when he finds Myra. He asks when she will return so he can find out where Hans is.

    He eventually realizes she is his wife and then shoots her as she says her last goodbye. As he leaves her room, he passes Hans coming with a bouquet of flowers, where he overhears Charlie talking about wanting to hear the woman’s husband scream.

    Hans does find Myra’s body and cradles her for a while. He goes to the waiting room to find Charlie, who asks him about what he is wearing around his neck (a cravat). Hans offers to give it to him, even taking it off to reveal a large slit scar in his throat. Repulsed, Charlie leaves.

    Billy is making out with his girlfriend Angela (Olga Kurylenko). She is also Charlie’s girlfriend, so she understandably freaks out when Billy brags about kidnapping his dog. She gets a call from Charlie as Billy gets a call from Hans, who tells him in front of Marty that he knows Charlie killed Myra.

    After he hangs up, he shoots Angela in the stomach, then hands her a Jack of Diamonds card, revealing that he is the masked killer. Title card reads PSYCHOPATH NO. 7…AND 1.

    Marty comes across Billy’s diary, revealing more about himself. He wishes he were a better person to people, particularly Kaya and Marty, but especially to Marty, calling him;the best writer of his generation.

    Billy comes by to get Marty, Hans, and Bonny. They drive off to get away from the villains. Charlie, meanwhile, cries over Bonny while his other goon Paulo tries to calm him down.

    In the car, Marty sincerely asks Billy for help with writing his script, which Billy happily accepts. They go to a bar where Marty tells Hans about the Quaker story.

    Hans realizes where this is going, and he reveals his throat scar to Marty and Billy. Back in the car, Hans informs Marty that his story isn’t totally accurate – he is indeed the Quaker from Marty’s story, and his daughter was black.

    Hans, after surviving the ordeal, tried to find peace through the words of Gandhi. Marty says he wants his screenplay to focus on themes like the;eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.

    He wants his film to be about peace and love, and not just violence and carnage. Billy disagrees and thinks that it SHOULD be violent, considering the film is about, well, seven psychopaths!

    The trio and the dog stop off in the desert during the day. Hans is reading Marty’s script and gives certain critiques, like the uselessness of the female characters, but he is most intrigued by the Vietnamese priest.

    Marty says he doesn’t even know what to do with that, but he just liked the idea of a Vietnamese man in a priest’s outfit. He imagines a scenario in which he comes home to his village from battle to his wife and daughters, but they are all dead.

    He would’ve gone out to kill the people responsible, and then have the aforementioned hooker go to a convention with a bomb strapped to her.

    At night, Billy comes in with an idea for the movie featuring an incredibly over the top climax with a shoot out. In it, which we see, the Jack o’ Diamonds Killer is waiting with Bonny in the cemetery as the boss (Charlie) comes in with all his men, armed to the teeth, and begin an epic shoot out.

    The killer starts shooting while Marty is writing what he observes. Meanwhile, the other psychopaths (Hans, Zachariah, Maggie) enter the shoot out. Even the Vietnamese guy comes in with a flamethrower.

    Somehow, Kaya comes in as it starts pouring rain (a great little wet t-shirt moment) and is calling out for Marty, but she gets shot to Hell as Marty cries out. He joins in this shoot out as the villains kill Zach, Maggie, the Vietnamese guy, and the Diamonds Killer.

    However, as Charlie is about to kill Hans and Marty, the killer somehow pulls out a crossbow and shoots Charlie in the neck, and then pulls out a shotgun and blasts Charlie’s head clean off.

    Marty and Hans go to the killer and have a tearful moment with him ad the imaginary camera pans out to the moonlight with Billy’s message of peace and the like. A perplexed Marty and Hans look at him and say its interesting.

    The next morning, Marty and Hans go to a shop and find a newspaper with Billy and Angela on the front page. He is suspected of the Jack o’ Diamonds murders, and Marty and Hans piece it together.

    They go back to their campsite to try and talk to him, but they spend the rest of the day drinking and having a peyote party. During their little trip, Marty asks Billy why he killed those people, and Billy says he thought it would help with the movie. Marty says he doesn’t want to work with a killer, which cuts Billy.

    Marty goes to find Hans, who thinks he just spoke to Myra, sitting on a chair in a room, but Marty says its just the peyote (later revealed to be Billy making voices) Suddenly, their car explodes, and they run to see if Billy’s okay. He was hiding in the tent with Bonny, and he tells the guys he called Charlie to come find them by himself and to look for the burning car.

    In the morning, they wait for Charlie to come around. Hans has gone off walking somewhere, leaving Marty and Billy with Bonny. When Charlie does come around, Billy checks to see if he is armed, and although he’s not, Billy shoots him in the back anyway.

    He still thinks he’s got a gun and checks his car, but all he finds is a flare gun. Charlie asks for his dog back, but Billy refuses to give it to him.

    In the welcome center closer to town, Hans walks near Paulo and other goons. Paulo threatens him with a gun, but Hans doesn’t even flinch. They stand there awkwardly avoiding the police.

    Marty pulls Charlie into the car to take him to the hospital, which Billy finds unbelievable. He fires the flare gun, which Paulo sees. He gets the other guys to go. Hans calls after them and begins to pull something out of his jacket, so they shoot him down.

    The cops see and try to shoot after the goons, but they get away. The cops go to a dying Hans, who is holding a tape recorder.

    As Marty is driving Charlie away, the other guys stop before them, and Charlie gets out. Paulo mentions killing Hans, which upsets Marty. Charlie almost decides to kill Marty, but when he doesn’t show fear, he has him move aside so they can go back to get Bonny.

    They all go back to where Billy and Bonny are, which is the ;perfect place for a shoot out. Billy fires and kills all of Charlie’s guys except Paulo.

    They have a standoff, where Billy threatens to shoot Bonny Si the flare gun, or Charlie will kill Marty. They eventually decide to let Marty go off after they conclude that he had nothing to do with this. He drives off.

    Charlie tries to shoot Billy, even though his gun is constantly jamming. He finally gets to shoot Billy in the head right as the cops are coming. Charlie calls for Bonny, who doesn’t come to him.

    The dog stands next to a dying Billy, who asks for his paw (a running gag in the film). Bonny gives him a paw, and Billy smiles as he dies. The cops arrest Charlie and Paulo.

    Marty finds a crowd standing over Hans’s corpse. He is allowed to take his tape recorder. He listens to it and hears a message Hans left regarding an idea for the Vietnamese psychopath.

    The man still meets with the hooker, dressed in a red dress (as opposed to just being imagined in her panties as earlier). They start to make love, but he hears; Desist, brother; in his language. He takes the woman to the convention with the bomb strapped to her and then pours gasoline near her.

    She, having learned Vietnamese, tells him;Desist, brother, this will not help us. He closes his eyes and then is sitting in a crowd on a street in Saigon, dressed like a Buddhist monk.

    He’s drenched in gasoline, as another monk repeats the phrase that the hooker said. The priest says it will help him. He commits self-immolation as the hooker watches in tears. Hans concludes that this psychopath decided not to choose a dark path as the others did.

    Sometime later, Marty finishes the script and has it all typed up and ready to go. We see that he is now taking care of Bonny. He leaves his home and starts walking down the street.

    The credits start to roll, until we see Marty getting a call from Zachariah. Apparently, Zachariah saw Marty’s film and noticed his message to Maggie was not included.

    Marty apologizes but Zach says he will be coming on Tuesday to kill him. Marty responds quietly and somewhat indifferently. Zach notices he sounds a bit different. He then says they will set this up some other time. He hangs up and leaves with his rabbit.

  28. Really, Clover?

    I defy you to produce a single example of a Libertarian espousing aggressive violence against anyone.

    Do you really not comprehend? Libertarians seek a peaceful society, in which individuals cooperate on a voluntary basis; in which the cardinal rule is – do not harm others. (That is, actually harm an actual person, Clover. No duckspeak from you about might harm a hypothetical “someone.”)

    I know you understand this. You’re just not honest enough to admit it – because then you’d have to concede what you want. A society in which it’s ok to visit aggressive violence on anyone, provided you have an electoral majority or get a law passed, or because a bureaucrat/politician decrees it to be acceptable. If the “ends” – defined by you, according to your subjective values – justify the “means” (that is, the stealing of other people’s property or the exercise of coercion against them to compel compliance).

    You want schools? Great! Then you (and others who also want them) pay for them. I don’t want them because I don’t use them. I therefore object to being forced to “help” pay for them.

    That’s the “solution,” Clover. Simple. And, right. Because you don’t have the right to visit violence on other people – or threaten to – in order to make them give you things, or do as you would have them do. No “good” justifies doing wrong. The mightiest skyscraper, the widest superhighway, the fastest airplane. If it involves doing violence to innocent, peaceful people, then it ought not to be done at all. Get it through your skull, Clover: What you like, what you want, does not give you a license to tromp around like a silverback gorilla – or more aptly, behave like Tony Soprano. Whatever you want, you pay for. Whatever others want, they pay for. No one gets to use force to make others pay for what they want.

    Get it?

    PS: I’m still dying to read your technical explanation regarding fuel injection and torque output. Or will you – for once – concede you made a fact-free statement?

  29. If you’re using any resource of the state. Especially when you are complying with the rules of that resource, then you are presumptively a clover. Do you have valid plates and insurance for your vehicle? Then you’re a clover.

    The way to mitigate being an occasional clover, pay some neighborhood kids a bounty for every road sign they bring you. Provide some cans of spray paint and have a prize for the kid who executes the “best” graffiti. (maybe a costumed cartoon pig who says “fuck the police”)

    To say you have no choice in using a road is neither here nor there. Nor can you avoid being a clover by saying leviathan is too powerful, there’s nothing to be done.

    A clover is anyone who is in net compliance with leviathan. The more compliant and taxpaying, the more you are a clover. The truth hurts, but that’s the facts.

    • Dear Tor,

      Are we sure we want to define clover that way?

      After all, the goonvermin have monopolized the road systems at gunpoint. If we want to get anywhere, we don’t have a lot of choice, do we?

      They are “highwaymen.” We don’t pay them willingly.

      I would suggest defining “clover” as anyone who WANTS IT THIS WAY. Libertarians by contrast, are forced to endure it. Hardly the same thing.

      • Okay, I can live with that.

        Perhaps the argument is just too malformed and non-sequitable.

        When Nixon said – we’re all keynesians now.

        It got me thinking, with all the new accepted and internalized intrusions, – we’re all clovers now.

        Goodbye gold standard first. Goodbye laissez faire standard second.

        Most of what we do is automatic without thought. We blink breathe and so on without considering it.

        A lot of our culture is that way too.

        We live in houses, sit in chairs and couches, sleep in beds. When we leave the house we wear clothes, walk, and drive.

        There are millions of other things we could be doing instead. And millions of other methods available to do the things we choose to do without thinking.

        The essence of cloverism I was thinking is demanding others accept your preferences as axioms and laws.

        The Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, are the best anti-clover examples I can think of.

        American Colony Meet the Hutterites

        They ride a got-damn horse and buggy down the highway, and do thousands of other things we wouldn’t even consider doing.

        They just write off all of modern America as “the english” and don’t give our ways a second thought.

        If they manage to live their lives their way, why don’t we? We must be clovers in some way, is the only answer I could think of. Maybe this is just more word salad and a link to a website, I don’t know.

        – guess I’m dancing with myself – William Broad – aka Billy Idol.

        • Dear Tor,

          These subcultures have the right idea in one respect. They do not buy into the myth of authority — at least not the myth of government authority.

          Whether they buy into a myth of religious authority, I leave for another day.

          The point is, if a critical mass of ‘Murcans adopted the same ignore the goonvermin attitude, the USG would collapse of its own dead weight, the way the Warsaw Pact governments collapsed post 1989.

          The key as always, is how we think. If we do not believe that government is “necessary,” it will simply dissolve into nothingness. No revolution required.

          • I might try to peacefully persuade you to become a Christian, but I would NEVER try to force you to do so.

            I presume the same is true for the Amish.

            Governmental “authority” is different in nature because it tries to compel compliance.

        • Hi Tor,

          What’s key as I see it with regard to the Amish is they don’t impose their way of life on others. You can choose to be Amish – or not.

          Clover’s distinguishing characteristic is his absolute refusal to countenance vive la difference.

          Everyone must do what he thinks right, live as he decrees … or else.

          And that has become the American Way, unfortunately.

    • I disagree, Tor.

      There is a difference between going along with something because you’ve got no real choice – and endorsing something, accepting it willingly.

      I would never put plates on my vehicles (much less pay for them) if I had a realistic choice. I would also not “cover” several of my vehicles, which mostly just sit in the garage. But, again, I have no realistic choice.

      Yes, I could choose to not get/pay for the plates – and the insurance. But then I risk very real repercussions. I am coerced into compliance.

      Clovers do the coercing.

      That’s the difference – and the distinction!

      • I understand Eric and I won’t go down that road any further.

        I think the trouble with my thinking, is its a kind of positivism.

        It’s placing a requirement on someone to prove themselves when they have given you no cause to demand anything of them.

        The right thinking is a reaction to an actual or potential negatism.

        Someone does something that explicitly violates the Zero Aggression Axiom – ZAA and our community investigates. Negative conduct is observed. Questioning is called for. It appears you have violated the ZAA. Why did you do that? What is your reasoning and justification for doing so?

        Morals come into question when something is observed.

        That’s ZAA violation in the first degree. The second degree is to advocate violating the NAP, or to threaten to do so.

        A specific example in our case, is clover. Clover has advocated over and over the use of aggressive force.

        He’s expressed the wish that this blog be shut down. That we be questioned by authorities, and if our answers aren’t to the authorities liking, that we be asked to leave. And then made to leave.

        He twists things and cries wolf and murderer and all manner of ridiculous slander. Perhaps he hopes to alert some kind of authority with his accusations. On the chance that someone will take action, just in case, without worrying about the truth of clovers accusations.

        The second degree of ZAA violation, which also triggers moral questioning and investigation, would be when someone says something or threatens something.

        There is no direct action I know of to be taken against someone who has only used words. Or made threats that don’t seem to be an imminent and mortal danger to any of us.

        But Clover has shown himself to be an enemy. Someone to watch over. Why take even a small risk that someone will believe his psychopathic lies. Clover is someone who can be banished and shunned from our company for his words and threats.
        – – – –

        For better or worse, we are where we are. It is unknown what happens, should the current government be crippled or weakened significantly.
        – – – –

        It seems a few years after Jesus died, the Jews started a big fight. Won a few preliminary battles. And then got utterly crushed and annihilated. And were cast into diaspora and wandered about nationless for 1900 years.

        We may be under some kind of Romanesque occupation, but getting out from under it may not be possible or even desirable.

        I talk all kinds of ways. But I don’t know what is to be done.

        It’s already a sore subject, the kind of subjugation we’re under. I don’t mean to add to it, by salting anyone else’s wounds unnecessarily.

        • I have often wondered if Eric’s site has been contacted by the “Authorities”, demanding IP’s and identities of users. If so, he would probably be required not to disclose this info. I would propose a “dead man’s trigger”. Hang an image on the front door of the website stating “The owners of this website have not been contacted by authorities to disclose user’s identities.” When the sign is removed one day, we will know.

          • Hi Inconsistencies,

            I want everyone to know that has never happened – and I will never kowtow to such a request. I’ll close this joint down before that happens.

          • Hi Inconsistencies. They would never contact Eric or I. There’s no need. I’m sure they have the ip addresses and browsing habits for all of us dating back many years. They don’t need permission. I believe every server, computer, and all pieces of peripheral hardware comes stock with back doors.
            My point… They already know!

          • Dear Dom, Eric,

            Yes. They already know.

            But the declaration of principles from fellow freedom lovers is nevertheless deeply appreciated.

          • I know Eric beat me to it, but I just have to respond to clover’s idiocy here. If I were to break into clover’s house and take his computer (After all, I’m fairly certain everyone here would agree I could put it to better use than he can) would this be acceptable so long as I left some money on the table to compensate him?

            Taking someone else’s property is theft even if it is compensated.

            I will also note that the Bible is completely against the idea of eminent domain and considers it to be theft.

            This may help any Christians here:


        • CloverTor it is obvious you and others here have mental problems and it builds upon itself with places like this site. You want to declare war for things like the government making sure everyone is educated and has an equal chance. You want to declare war for the government getting tax money to build roads and bridges. You want to declare war for taxes to support a local fire department. You want to declare war for having snow removal by the government. You want to declare war for pretty much anything. Tor, you say I am a bad person. Why is it that libertarians talk about bloodbaths for the things I have mentioned?

          • Clover, it’s been explained to you countless times that Libertarians only object to coercion – not to education, not to roads or any other such thing. They favor people cooperating with one another voluntarily for whatever common purpose they wish to pursue; in free exchange and free association.

            The “bloodbaths” you decry are the business of government, which uses coercion and violence to achieve the ends of some at the expense of others.

            A war, Clover, requires aggression. Libertarians never throw the first punch or fire the first shot.

            It’s people like you who do that.

          • Clover, you have a very interesting take on things. You consider non-violent, peaceful people who advocate dealing with others on the basis of mutual consent rather than violence to have “mental problems” … but regard those who insist on using violence to get their way as perfectly sane.

            One truly flew over the cuckoo’s nest…

          • Interesting, Clover, that you use words such as “the government making sure everyone is…”

            Is what? [Insert here]

            You say educated for one. How about vaccinated? That work for you? How about medicated? That too? What about sub-groups? I can think of an historical figure who applied such thinking to a sub-group… Jews.

            And you think us as having mental problems?

            • Hi Salt,


              The problem with psychotics is they often think they’re normal.

              For Clover, freedom really is slavery; war is peace . . and – most of all – ignorance is strength.

          • Eric it was libertarians that talked about themselves and followers causing the bloodbaths. Go look it up. Clover

            Eric you said you are not against those things I mentioned. You just do not want coercion. Eric I pay for those things and I am not coerced. I think we need those things. I pay. If you do not want a government telling you that you need to pay then how are you planning on paying? Who are you going to pay? Who is going to do the work? Who makes sure there is no price gouging for the things that you want like your local roadway? Eric to answer those types of questions we as a society formed a government. The government combines all the money and builds and takes care of the things that society wants, even you. What is your solution in detail? I have been waiting!

            Yes Salt, vaccinated also. Before vaccinations millions of people died of certain diseases. Now many of those diseases are nearly wiped out because of your so called evil vaccinations. Salt I could care less if you die of a terrible disease. I just do not want to have to bury thousands of of people when they get the same thing that you want. I do not want you spreading that disease to millions of others.

            • I find it fascinating, Clover, that you can reference people dying as a result of infectious diseases yet never acknowledge the millions killed by government. By the body count, nothing – no force of nature, no individual actor – can remotely “stack up” corpses the way government can . . . and has.

              You might try some introspective thought, Clover. Well, if you were capable of it.

              But I suspect you simply don’t care.

              Much as you posture as The Great Benefactor, you’re in reality an incredibly callous, mean-minded person. The lives of other people mean exactly nothing to you.

              What you value is obedience and service – to further whatever goal you happen to consider worthy. If people comply – and “help” – great.

              If they refuse – and resist – lower the hammer. Force them. Cage them. Kill them, if need be.

              What an awful creature you are, Clover.

          • It is understandable why a bullied minority would want to kill the people who are bullying them. Mind you, I’m not saying its inherently right (I’m with the DOI, it isn’t right if the causes are light and transient) but it is understandable. Its quite normal to desire harm on the guy who steals from you, kidnaps your friends, and kills your neighbor’s pets.

            Now, I’m going to reference somebody who I’d consider to be just on the edge of “the line” here when it comes to advocating violence… Christopher Cantwell (Please read this entire post before responding, no matter what you may think right now.). Its often a strawman when people say that libertarians want to kill cops and so forth, but Cantwell actually does believe that just being a cop is worthy of execution. If anybody in the libertarian camp could be referred to as supporting aggressive violence against the government (I realize this is actually debatable, but the thing is that unlike some cases, it actually is debatable in this case. Keep reading) it would be Cantwell. I’d actually say Cantwell is somewhere close to that line, with the obvious pragmatic “fight for another day” being considered.

            Now, consider this, Cantwell is HONEST about the violence he supports. He’s actually man enough to say “This cause [freedom] is so important that its morally acceptable to kill government mercenaries in order to attain it.” I don’t agree (at least as far as “cops” are a general group, I am not saying that a cop could never do something sufficiently bad that he would not deserve to live), but at least Cantwell is open about it.

            Clover supports FAR more violence than Cantwell or any other libertarian, but he’s not open about it. He pretends that violence isn’t violence just because the gang he supports is big enough that most people let them get away with it most of the time. But in reality clover absolutely supports killing people, and not just aggressors, but also people who refuse to comply with tax regulations and the subsequent arrest attempt, drug laws and the subsequent arrest attempt, and so forth.

            So yes, I will say that sometimes a libertarian goes overboard and advocates violence in a situation where I wouldn’t say its justified (not nearly as often as clover thinks). I may have done it myself at some point. You could probably find something I’ve said when I was ticked off that I would retract now if you tried. But at least libertarians know what words mean. libertarians do not claim to be against violence of all types, just aggressive violence. Clovers do not know what words mean. So, they advocate tons of violence, not realizing that its violence, and then they look at people who endorse a little bit of violence against the aggressors, and are actually honest about it, as “violent psychopaths.”

            I recall an SPLC video (Nobody worry, I am not referencing them positively;p) that was fearmongering against “sovereign citizens.” Someone apparently killed a cop who was involved with an eminent domain case. The guy who was doing the documentary was acting like it was “extreme” that the “sovereign citizen” thought the government had no right to take “a tiny bit” (SPLC shill’s words) of their land to widen a public road.

            Now, I’m going to first of all say that I don’t think killing the cop was justified. Its not really because he’s a cop. Its because killing to prevent a loss of a small amount of property is, in my opinion, not exactly a worthwhile endeavor, doubly so when the thief is involved with a gang big enough to kill you and brainwash millions into thinking they had the right to do so. Not a good idea.

            But, who’s the real violent crazy? Was it the guy who killed to defend his land? Of course not! It was the guys in blue, the courts, and so forth who used aggressive violence to STEAL that guy’s land. But since people are so conditioned to accept massive amounts of government violence as normal, they condemn the person who defended his land as a crazy kook and they see the cop who was killed (I won’t dignify him by saying “murdered”, it was a defensive action even though I don’t agree with it) as some kind of a hero. Anyone who thinks the cop who was enforcing the eminent domain law is morally superior to the guy who killed the cop to protect his land (whether you want to frame it as “Better” or “less bad” being irrelevant to me) has a real issue with ethics, and I suspect that’s 95% of the country at least.

            So, to make a long story short, libertarians generally don’t relish the idea of violence, and I don’t know of any who do (I would be shocked if even somebody like Chris Cantwell relished the thought… I really really doubt it) but they will sometimes advocate defensive violence or violence in order to impose justice on an aggressor. But libertarians are generally HONEST about the fact that they are supporting violence when they do this. Statists support far more violence, but they use euphemisms and dishonesty so it LOOKS like the libertarians endorse more violence than they actually do.

            As for me, I’ll live at peace with all men as much as I can, even if the men are armed goons who are threatening certain amounts of violence against me. But if they ever physically harm someone in my family, I’d have no problem using violence back, even if the family member in question was too indoctrinated to truly understand the gravity of what happened to them.

            • Cantwell must speak for himself, of course. And not for others.

              As a doctrinal matter (to put it that way) it’s a Libertarian no-no to initiate violence. So, the question arises: Does being a cop – as such – amount to initiating violence?

              One can argue – not without merit – that it does. Also – and with equal merit – that it does not.

              I’d say we’re dealing with a theoretical vs. an actual. That is, if I merely put on the uniform and am sworn in, I am perhaps about to commit aggression and may (probably will) actually do so. But have I actually – at that moment? And – to whom?

              There is also the issue of proportionality.

              A cop who pulls me over to ticket me for a seatbelt “violation” has certainly committed an act of aggression. And – ipso facto – I am morally entitled to defend myself. But in the grand scheme of things, what is a proportionate response? I would not punch out a guy (a not-cop) for insulting me, or putting a ding into my car’s door. Let alone pull out a weapon.

              I personally prefer to try to educate them. It may be a fool’s errand to point out to a cop that he has no more right to tell you at gunpoint to “buckle up” than you have to tell him – also at gunpoint – to lose the beer belly. But it may get him thinking – and even if it does not, you have placed the issue squarely before him – and thereby, he can no longer claim the excuse of ignorance, that he’s “just doing his job.”

          • CloverThanks David. I do not agree with everything you said but what else is new? David you say that people have the right to kill if government takes some land from you to make our society better? One question? Do you ever use interstates or other roads? What about the land that was taken from the individual? Did Indians populate the land first? Did animals use the land before he took it over? Our country would be very limited if there was no eminent domain. There would be few or no roads. There would be no power lines. There would be no gas pipelines. There would be no water pipelines in cities. There never would have been cable TV. Libertarians are stupid. I still do not see where libertarian violence is not aggressive?

          • Eric, I hope you understand that I was not attacking Cantwell by making the statement I made. My point was simply that even if you stretch libertarian theory as far as you possibly can with regards to acceptable and justified violence, it still leaves you supporting far less violence than clover does. I was also pointing out that someone like Cantwell is actually honest about the violence he supports, while clover is not.

            Regarding cops in general, I’m more or less in agreement with you. Educating them will at least leave them without an excuse, if nothing else, so that’s worth doing. I also agree that, during the moment you are being held up at gunpoint, you have the right (I won’t say “moral” necessarily, because I don’t think its moral in these traffic stop type situations where you really won’t lose much when you don’t defend yourself, and you both take someone else’s life and lose your own when you do. But you certainly aren’t an aggressor if you do so, and jury nullification should [although almost certainly won’t] play a role in your case) according to the NAP to use whatever level of violence you have to to end that encounter.

            But, what about when you AREN’T in that position. Let’s say (for the sake of argument) that you see a cop. You know that his only aggressive actions (Again, for the sake of argument) are to hand out tickets for “speeding” and for “seat belt violations.” So, a thief, maybe an armed robber, not a murderer or kidnapper. You see him eating lunch someplace. He’s in uniform, so he’s technically “on the clock”, but he’s not committing any aggression.

            At that point, I think proportionality has to come into play. You could justify killing someone who is actually holding you at gunpoint even though his transgression against you is far less than murder because you are defending yourself against aggression. But it seems to me that once you’re past the actual situation and are thinking about how to enact justice for a situation that already happened (whether that justice be vigilante or not) you have to actually think about what’s proportional, and it seems to me that putting someone to death for stealing, even if he uses a gun, is disproportionate, and as such it would be murder to just shoot him. Would you disagree here? And if so, why?

            @clover- Wow you’re clueless. But then, what else is new?

            To be clear, I am not saying that I would kill a cop who tried to take my property in an eminent domain case, nor that I condone doing so. But really, doing so is no different in practice than killing an armed robber who tries to take your land at gunpoint. Make of that what you will. Stealing what belongs to someone else is just as wrong whether you have a badge or not.

            Its simply reality that the government official started the violent confrontation in such a case, and a libertarian or anyone else who refuses to put up with it and chooses to defend himself violently is not an aggressor. The same could be said for any of these other cases that you whine of libertarians “being aggressive”. Ask yourself who started the violent confrontation. The answers should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 25 (and yes, I know that probably doesn’t include clover.)

            I’m not even going to bother addressing the pragmatic arguments. Theft is theft, period. You know it, and I know it.

          • CloverSorry David but the law is the law since our country was formed. Eminent domain is not stealing. You would not exist in this country without eminent domain practices. You definitely would not live where you are living. Eminent domain compensates the person for their loss. When you compensate someone for their loss that is not stealing with a justifiable libertarian killing to follow. Yes libertarians are stupid violent people.

            • Clover is very selective about “the laws” he reveres. What about “the laws” in the Bill of Rights forbidding unreasonable searches – defined as those without specific probable cause, articulated in a warrant issued by a judge? Or “the law” enshrining the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

              Clover doesn’t like those laws – so he ignores them.

              He also doesn’t like “the law” that specifies slower traffic keep to the right, and yield to faster-moving traffic.

              PS: Eminent domain is theft because it is the taking by force of someone else’s property. That the victim receives “compensation” (arbitrarily decided by those doing the taking) in no way changes the nature of the transaction.

              You’re a moral imbecile, Clover.

              In addition to being an illiterate ignoramus.

              That’s a triple play!

          • Eric when you shut off your electricity and do not drive on any public roads then you can tell me how evil eminent domain is.. It is just like a libertarian by saying how evil something is that they are benefiting from.
            Yes Eric I agree with following all laws until they are changed. The keeping right law does not give you the right to go over the speed limit and to say the left lane is yours because you are driving 25 mph over the speed limit. In heavy traffic in all states that I know of the left lane is no longer the passing lane. Yes Eric those are the laws.

            As for carrying a gun in public, on planes and in bars that is your interpretation of the law. I could care less if you bear arms in your house. Carrying guns in public causes far more people getting shot than what it saves. There are many incidents where a person with a permit to carry in public has killed many innocent people. It has been shown here that libertarians definitely have an anger problem and are willing to kill at the drop of a hat. They have said so here.
            I do have to laugh when you say that those evil police with their guns draw or whatever. By reading all the posts here and on other internet sites I would have my gun drawn also because libertarians say they will kill police for pretty much any reason.

          • “Eminent domain compensates the person for their loss. ”

            LOL! Clover, let me tell you how it really works. If you are connected you get a very inflated value for the property you bought because you knew the highway or whatever was going to plow through it. If you’re not, you get pennies on the dollar. If you fight and lose you might have pay them. See what happened in New London.

            • According to Clover’s ethics (and logic) if I punch him in the mouth and knock a couple teeth out, it’s all good provided I pay his dental bills. His loss is obviated by “compensation.”

          • ‘Roads… power lines… gas pipelines… and cable TV”.

            It appears that these are all idols the clovers of the world think are More important than a single human life – and – they are all more important than liberty! What an insight into the mind of a,… what are they?… Anti-humans?

            Clovers are beyond absurd.

            “The law is the law!” The Clovers chant@!

            Reason be damned, eh Clover?

            You say if it wasn’t, ‘The Law” you wouldn’t support it? But until then, you do?
            Gawd, this seems like the makings of a Clint Eastwood film. ‘Hang ‘Em High!”

            Ha! “You would not exist in this country without eminent domain practices.”

            The sad thing is, far too many people think this too.

            BrentP wrote, ‘See what happened in New London.”

            Now BrentP, you know clover isn’t going to do that.

            Nor will the other clovers throughout the land, I mean, there’s 700 channels on cable, and most of them are sports channels which are far far more important than that.

            i’m shaking my head here thinking of the people i know who would rather change the channel than think about the facts of this thread. …. i’m ashamed to have known them.

            Also, good try, David.

            I can’t imagine how it is for you.
            At least you know.
            I only wished there was “an Internet” when I was your age. WHoa, do i ever. I searched high and low for it back then.

            • Yes Helot (cuing Clover-speak) that is exactly it. Clover values his conveniences more than your life. If necessary, you must forfeit your life for the sake of Clover’s greater good….

          • CloverLibertarians are stupid. They want liberty. They want to be left alone. Do not touch my land they say. What they leave out is that they would be unemployed, there would be no road to their house, they would not have electricity without eminent domain. Without any eminent domain the population in the United States would be about 10,000 people. Libertarians would never be here. To get to a store libertarians would be trespassing. To get to work libertarians would be trespassing on somebody’s land. There is not a person here that would own their precious property without eminent domain. Yes it is not perfect but then again libertarianism definitely is not perfect. They kill people.

            • No, Clover – Libertarians are moral. And principled.

              Unlike you, they do not believe the ends justify the means. Their comfort, their convenience – their needs and wants – do not entitle them to do violence to others.

              Poor ol’ Clover.

              And: I’m still waiting to learn from you how fuel injection “helps” torque output….

          • CloverEric fuel injection saves gas. When you run out gas in your carbed up car the fuel injected car will still have 100% of torque. You would have zero torque. I know, you want us to declare war on Putin so you will have your steady supply of foreign oil. Eric if we use less then you do not have to deal with foreign countries. Again you are the idiot.

            • This may be the finest Clover post to date . . . behold:

              “When you run out gas in your carbed up car the fuel injected car will still have 100% of torque.”

              Clover goes on to expound that a carbureted engine “would have zero torque.”

              One literally cannot make this shit up.

              Clover is epic.

          • CloverAgain Eric if you are in any country and disagree with the way they are doing things then none of them will declare violence on you. If you do not follow the laws of any country and you pull your gun on their people then guess what Eric? You get what you ask for. Eric it is you that is declaring violence when you do not follow laws. If you do not like those laws you always have the option to leave or get enough people in office to change those laws. I did read on a web site though that certain libertarians are strictly against running for office. They prefer the violence way of changing things. With a gun. Yes Eric it is libertarians that promote the use of violence. Eric I am against violence. Our government does not promote violence. If you are breaking laws and acting in a violent manner then you get what you are asking for.

            • Keep ’em coming, Clover – you’re priceless!

              “When you run out gas in your carbed up car the fuel injected car will still have 100% of torque.”

              “Again Eric if you are in any country and disagree with the way they are doing things then none of them will declare violence on you.”

              “Yes Eric it is libertarians that promote the use of violence.”

              “Our government does not promote violence.”

            • Clover writes:

              “Again Eric if you are in any country and disagree with the way they are doing things then none of them will declare violence on you.”

              Do you suppose Clover really believes this?

              No, of course not. Clover himself tells us:

              “Eric it is you that is declaring violence when you do not follow laws. ”

              So, do as you’re told – or else. If you don’t obey the law – whatever the law happens to be – then you deserve to be punished and have only yourself to blame.

              Clover concludes:

              “Our government does not promote violence.”

              It speaks for itself.

          • Clover’s desperately trying to shout over the top of us but doesn’t realise it’s not possible on the interwebs. It’s like a rabid dog attacking his reflection but doesn’t understand why it knows every move in advance.

            Every time he manages a post crammed with pathological fallacies I bet he beams satisfaction. It’s what he does.

            Sorry Clover, we can’t hear you but your inane fisting of your keyboard clearly displays your mental state. Better change that prescription.. 🙂

          • Ha! Those were priceless clover quotes.

            When I read this one: ““When you run out gas in your carbed up car the fuel injected car will still have 100% of torque.” all I could think of was how running a car out of gas often destroys a fuel injected fuel pump.

            …. Maybe things have changed since I first worked on fuel pumps? But from what I know, running out of gas is At Least a $200 mistake. ,,,Not so with the old time mechanical fuel pumps. Oh boy do I miss those.

            …Not too mention the hassle of having to remove a gas tank or take off a pickup bed just to replace a fuel pump. That’s sum fun.

            eric might still be waiting to learn from Clover how fuel injection “helps” torque output… I’m wondering how she gets away with not cleaning her fuel injectors?

          • Da Clover wrote, “Our government does not promote violence.”

            Ha! Har-dee-Har-Har!

            The Clovers of the world really Do believe in unicorns and lollipops on rainbows.

  30. “he will use the car’s momentum to slow down. This may save him gas – but it wastes everyone else’s time.”

    If they all are going to stop at the light, they have not changed their time of arrival at their destination much. If the clover saves on gas, then all those behind the clover will save on gas. And besides if it is a 2 lane highway, why don’t you just pass the clover. On a one lane situation you have an interesting problem in social organization. Either everyone can save gas like the clover wants, or everyone can drive up as far as possible to the light and brake. But you can’t do both. And a clover can overrule all those behind him.

    Am I a clover?

    On route 35 on the Jersey shore, if I see a red light way up ahead, I take my foot off the gas an coast as far as I can so that when the light changes to green I can speed up to normal speed without having to stop for the light. On route 35 to turn left or right you have to pull into the right lane, using one of those jug handle things to turn left. I guess if I were in the right lane, you could pass me on the left. BTW I drive a Nissan Cube that has a CVT not a transmission, if that makes a difference.

    In stop and go traffic I tend to slow down to a speed where I don’t have to stop, this requires me to leave a sizable gap in front of me, but if I left 50 yards someone from the outer lane will pull in front of me. I hate to say it, but in part I do this for just for the challenge of not stopping. The people behind me are forced to creep along behind me, as opposed to breaking, stopping, accelerating, driving and then repeating the cycle over and over. Some people might prefer being stuck in very slow moving traffic as opposed to being completely stopped although it probably does not change their arrival time.

    • Dear George,

      I would say this depends on context. If the car behind you is still a long way off, you could do it without seriously inconveniencing others.

      I would say that if you force an entire column of cars behind you to slow down prematurely, a long way from the upcoming light, then one is indeed being cloverish.

      • A friend did that, coast a lot. He never needed new barkes. I have had people rush to get around me,,, moving down the road. Short while later, there he is as I am again back with him.

        Cloverism is situational. On the interstate I’m usually gone. On a city street, depends.

        • Hi Salt,

          The thing that defines Clover (vs. non Clover) is not the action as such. It is expecting or forcing others to accommodate your actions.

          For example: Driving slowly is not a dick (that is, Clover) thing to do… as such. Provided one defers to faster-moving traffic by moving right or – when it’s necessary – briefly pulling off the road to let the cars stacking up behind you get past.

          You’re only a dick – a Clover – when you ignore the cars behind you and use your vehicle to block them in and force them to drive at your speed.

          And so on.

  31. I played a lovely game of Clover pick-’em on my way from job one to job two today (gotta work two jobs so I can pay Clover’s rent too, after all). Turned on to Hollywood Road, which is posted at 50 mph (and everybody goes much faster), and shortly found myself fourth in line behind a government construction vehicle plodding down the road at 20 mph. Second in line? A goddamn cop. So of course nobody’s willing to pass — it was a no passing zone, but, honestly, I wouldn’t be comfortable passing in *any* situation with that cop right there. His eyes will turn into giant dollar signs just like in the cartoons if he sees that. So we all went 20 mph down a long, straight road until the backhoe finally turned onto a side street.

    The punch line, of course, being that Alaska state law says it’s illegal to cause a backup of five vehicles or more — you’re required to pull off and let them go by. Did the pig enforce this law? Of course not! MUCH more lucrative to wait for somebody to get fed up and pass, and, after all, that backhoe was a gubmint vehicle, and they gotta stick together!

    After the backhoe left the road, the cop almost immediately pulled over and just started sitting there. I guess his brilliant snare failed, and now it was time for a more conventional revenue-extraction trap.

    • Ah feel your pain, Darien!

      Just yesterday, I got caught behind a similar conga. No cop, but four cars crawling along behind a big farm tractor doing about 20 (max speed, probably) in a 55 zone. Plenty of opportunity to pass, but none of the four clovers would – because of the double yellow line.

      They’ve been well-conditioned. Submit! Obey!

      I, of course, passed them all – the double yellow be damned! (No oncoming traffic, plenty of time & perfectly safe to do so… just “illegal.”)

  32. Five “favorite” clovers:

    Following this site has caused me to become more and more aware of the clover problem in my town (and everywhere else, for that matter). I have compiled a list of five clover types that I seem to run into all too frequently.

    1. The cutoff and crawl clover: The guy who cuts right out in front of you and forces you to brake, then slows down to about 15 mph under the speed limit. Typically this occurs in heavy traffic on a two lane road when it’s impossible to pass.

    2. The “oh I can turn left here” clover: This person will pull out of a shopping center driveway, pull across two lanes or so and attempt to get into the left turn lane at a stoplight. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, of course. But the clover either miscalculates, lacks skill and common sense or both and winds up splayed across two lanes of traffic with the nose of the car barely sitting in the left turn pocket.

    3. The rush hour left turn genius at a stop sign onto a major street clover: This guy will sit at a side street at a stop sign and attempt to turn left onto a major thoroughfare at the height of rush hour. Ignoring the street with the traffic light that would expedite this maneuver just a few blocks away, they will sit there… and sit there… and sit there… attempting to squeeze out into heavy traffic and complete their turn. They will ease out, eventually forcing cross traffic to stop in order to allow them onto the road. Meanwhile, they are completely oblivious as the nice line of cars wishing to turn right builds and builds behind them and the irritated motorists glare impatiently at a dead stop on the thoroughfare.

    4. Invisible roadcone clover: Say you have a construction project of some kind on some busy street. They block off the main road and make everyone cut over into what would normally be the oncoming traffic lane to avoid interacting too closely with the workers. Eventually the project runs its course, the cones are picked up and the workers are gone. Well, the other day I drove past such a project that had (finally) been recently completed. The woman in front of me veered over into oncoming traffic as she passed the remnants of the construction even though the road was completely open. Fortunately for her, nobody was coming the other way at the time. I guess she had been doing it so long that the obstacles were hard coded into both of her brain cells.

    5. The be kind to the pedestrian clover: I had a guy in front of me come to a dead stop while waving at a fellow on the side of the road to cross the street. The only problem was that the guy was actually waiting for the bus. He pointed at the bus stop sign and waved the driver along. The clover insisted that he cross the street, since he was such a nice guy that he stopped everyone behind him to allow him to go past. Eventually realizing his mistake, he started to move again…. slowly… slowly… then attempted to change lanes slowly while other people were attempting to get around him at a much higher rate of speed. This dude looked like a future organ donor to me.

    • Hi Dan,

      All good (bad) ones!

      They are proliferating, too. It’s exhausting, dealing with them all the time.

      The only practical solutions I’ve found are: A fast motorcycle – and moving to a less populated area, where there are proportionately fewer Clovers!

  33. LOL! I just remembered….I mostly drive my cars the same as my bikes…….(I was driving bikes years before cars anyway) and that strategy is to get away from, and stay away from, everyone else, period. I also use the horn as often, or more so, than the brakes. Sounds aggressive, but it is pure survival on 2 wheels, and is actually still mandatory by VA State Vehicle Code, Believe-It-Or-Not!

    • Indeed. Clovers never read all the early 20th century ‘upon audible signal’ that are in the vehicle code. Clovers never read the vehicle code, they just have a handmedown version that’s morphed like the telephone game.

      • Hi Brent,

        Arguably, it’s even worse. Each Clover makes up his own code – according to his own standards of “safe” driving. For example, our Clover will – by his own admission – drive somewhat faster than the posted limit. This “somewhat faster” is ok – according to this Clover. But another Clover would surely characterize it as “unsafe.”

        One of the defining attributes of the Clover mind (if you can call it that) is its subjectivity and arbitrariness.

  34. My pet Peeve………Ramp-Clovers.

    #1 The Jerk in front of me on the on-ramp braking to 1/2 or less than 1/2 of traffic speed…the shortness of the acceleration lane often seems to increase the braking force this clover uses.

    #2 The clover on the freeway blocking on/off ramps, below highway speed, and frequently when no other traffic is in the left lane. This is often the contributing cause to clover #1.

    Non-clover defensive driving rule #1: A good offense is the best defense!

    • Yes, indeed!

      And, PS: I got your e-mail and message in re the bike trip. Will try to call today… busier than a short order cook in Hell lately….

  35. Variation on The Match Your Pace Clover:

    You’re at 70, on cruise control in the right lane of a lightly traveled interstate. You move into the left lane to allow a car or two to merge on to the highway ahead of you since they’re going 60 or so. They quickly accelerate to match your speed, keeping you from getting back in the right lane. Very annoying.

  36. I have to compliment a semi-truck driver on Route 75 in Kansas who actually pulled over to let me pass him last week. Amazing. And I wasn’t even tailgating yet. That road has plenty of passing zones and I was willing to wait, but the trucker just did a polite thing. What a concept.

    • The farmers on their hugely over-sized tractors doing about 25 M.P.H. on 55 M.P.H. roads do the same thing on this end of cowshit country, Paula. I imagine they do the same there.
      It. Is. An amazing thing to behold.

      Hats off to them. The considerate trucker, and the considerate farmers.

      It’s contrary to the clovers of the world, and the school buses they often drive – followed by fifty cars with an inch between bumpers. Everybody’s late, except the co-ed prison school bus. …They just – STOP – smack dab in the middle of rush hour traffic, high speed hyway, or low speed thoroughfare, it don’t matter to them. If anything happens, it’s your fault, not theirs for stopping in the middle of the flow of traffic! Everybody Must STOP.

      It seems like the idea of a co-ed prison bus moving Off to the side of the road to pick up prisoners, never occurred to them?

      …Or, maybe like most sensible True saftey measures, it’s just too danged expensive for them to contemplate? (Soft shoulders need reinforcement, that sort of thing). God forbid the parents be responsible for taking their own children to the co-ed prison school, negating the need for school buses in the first place. …And, OMG, the thought of homeschooling, or tiny one room schoolhouses in the local area! Can’t have that.

      /Oops, that turned into a rant. /rant OFF.

      • school buses…. if the safety of the children is the priority rather than cost or speed, why can’t these buses turn into subdivisions and pickup the children from a minor side street instead of the arterial road?

        Nothing like getting stuck behind the school bus and little Susie, only after the bus has stopped and opened the door bothers to get her crap together, say good bye to her mom and her dog, get out of mom’s SUV and slowly walk on to the bus…. then the bus sits there until Susie finds a seat with her friends and finds somewhere to put her crap down…. and then finally when all the other children at the same stop have completed this ritual then and only then can the bus start moving and everyone on the major road get on with their lives.

        Now they are putting cameras on the school buses to automatically ticket drivers who keep on going. Never mind that there are all sorts of if-than-else statements in the law that the camera system won’t pick up on. It will just send tickets.

        When I was a kid our bus stops were generally in the subdivisions so people who had to get to work didn’t get delayed by buses. We walked to the bus stop. We stood there outside in all sorts of weather.

  37. Hi Eric, et al,

    I was up in your neck of the woods driving to a family reunion. Gawd, do you ever have a clover infestation, especially on I-81. Jaysus some of those assholes were absolutely dangerous, as well as irritating. I can see how this is such an issue with you. BTW, as a non-clover old fart, I don’t think cloverism is age related. In fact, those of us who lived when critical thinking was more common could well have fewer clovers per whatever metric you are using.

    All of that said, you live in a fantastic area of physical beauty. I managed to wander over to Blacksburg finally….if I had gone to college there, I’d probably still be in that area….great combination of access to interesting stuff and surrounded by physical beauty. Also, the local food movement seems well established there so one can potentially eat stuff that is not tainted by Monsanto poison.

    • Hi Giuseppe!

      Yes, indeedy – Cloverism is entrenched in Virginia. It’s much worse in Northern Virginia, however.

      Here in SW Viginia, the lower density makes it feasible to avoid (and go around) the Clovers . . . most of the time.

      It is a beautiful area. We’re about 35 miles from Blacksburg, in a county called Floyd. One stoplight. Pretty rural – but not as rural as I’d like!

      Our place is about to miles from the Blue Ridge Parkway, near mile marker 145. Drop a line next time you’re in the area!

      • Hey Eric,

        Floyd county…isn’t that where they have Floydfest? My brother used to go there in the 70s for a Horseshoe Festival that, I assume, morphed into Floydfest. Next time I’m travelling that way, I’ll stop in.

  38. Can someone explain the “I brake for no apparent reason” Clover? Driving down the interstate in the middle of the day in the middle of nowhere. The very few cars on the road have plenty of room, no one in front for 100s of yards. Clover is driving along at the posted limit, then, for no apparent reason, hits the brakes hard! Clover slows down from say, 70 mph to 45 – 50 mph. then speeds back up to the limit. WTF OVER?!

    • That one is a cognitive issue. Clover most probably does not either have cruise or hasn’t set it. When clover’s mind has drifted from its assigned task, his speed, something must be done and immediately.

      He brakes.

    • It’s a brain fart. A constant sickness in Clover’s mind, he just doesn’t know it’s happening. He was just experiencing freedom, when WHAM!

      He noticed he wasn’t complying with THE MAN’S arbitrary number on his dashboard, which very likely isn’t even accurate and panicked.

  39. “Creeps away from a just-turned green light not much faster than a bicycle rider can build speed?”

    If only they would pull away faster than I do on a bicycle.

    Want to see a clover’s homicidal side come out? Pass them by accelerating faster with a bicycle than they do in a car.

    I have had two clovers try to kill me intentionally and a few more scream at me because when their slow uptake at a light resulted in a free and clear left lane* I changed lanes and passed them. This sends them into a rage like nothing else will. I swear nothing gets them more angry.

    *as in everyone in the left lane has cleared the intersection and long since left the clover and everyone stuck behind him behind.

  40. You missed the worst clover of them all. The ones that cause collisions behind themselves. They of course don’t get hit, so they drive on, oblivious, not even noticing that they caused a wreck behind them.

    Victim of such an accident last summer.

    • Most often these clovers are the ones that obey red light cams or roadside speed cams. They slam on the brakes at the first hint of a yellow light, forcing evasive action from all those behind who could all get through the intersection if it weren’t for clover.

      Same for a parked car on the side of the road – even with the hood up. They panic as it might be a speed camera, slowing from 10 under the limit to 30 under within a few feet.

  41. True story: Several years ago I was driving home from work after a snow storm. There was a good 6-8 inches of snow on the 4-lane road, with ruts in each lane. This idiot clover in front of me is driving in the middle of the two lanes with his driver side tires in the right side ruts of the left lane and his passenger side tires in the left ruts of the right lane. He was doing this so other people couldn’t pass him. He felt that his speed was the safe speed and no one should pass.

  42. My favorite clover tactic.

    Multilane road.

    Coming to a newly changed red light.

    You behind clover. Clover wishes to turn left. You wish to turn left.

    If clover would get to the sensor it would give you a green light THIS cycle….but no….gotta roll up slowly for some ungodly reason….and we wait.

    Or they roll up and never get to the sensor…and we wait.

    • The side street where I wait at light every morning is like this. some clover stops short not on the sensor. I pass the clover and stop on the sensor. This is risky. It’s very close to the cop shop. But if I don’t do that we will be waiting until someone wants to turn left from the opposite side or the heat death of the universe, which ever comes first.

    • How about the wait until I am the only one who will make the light Clover? Clover MUST come to a complete stop at an intersection, well, because Clover thinks it proper. Then Clover will wait, look in all directions, only to proceed when the light turns yellow, thus Clover is the only one to make it though.

      • Eric’s had a few articles previously covering various other behaviors.

        Clovers in general do not recognize that there is anyone behind them. They are unconcerned with throughput. They are only selfishly concerned with themselves making a light, pulling out, etc and so forth. Everyone else can just wait and should wait.

        I’ve watched clovers fail to accelerate and then run a red signal, leaving those behind them to wait. If they accelerated everyone would have made it through on green.

        Cloverite views are all ‘seen vs. unseen’. That’s why they believe in the broken window as economic stimulus.

        • Dear Brent,

          Amen to that.

          One of the many ironies of clover statists is their charge that “Libertarians are selfish, and libertarianism is a system based on selfishness.”

          Gotta laugh a bitter laugh at that one.

          Clover narcissists who don’t even notice how they wreak havoc upon “society.”

          Reminds me of Mr. Magoo. Precipitates chaos all around himself, then waves his fist indignantly at others for “lack of consideration.”

          • ha!
            Long before this website in one of the driving discussion groups I followed one of the regulars, possibly myself, I no longer remember started calling a class of drivers ‘magoos’. Here magoos are just a subset of clovers.

          • Dear Brent,


            Magoo and clover.

            Not much of a stretch when you think about it!

            Re: “selfishness” in the bad sense, as opposed to Rand’s unconventional sense

            What could be more “selfish” than ramming one’s own prejudices down other peoples’ throats?

            What could be more “unselfish” than insisting that others have the right to be free from one’s selfish prejudices?

            As usual, the statists have everything exactly backwards.

            PS: Why is the individualist term “statist” not considered a word by spellcheck??? Am I a “tinfoil hatter” to infer something rotten in the state of Oceania?

          • Statist in spell check… I’ve wondered about that, but I find lots of terms spell check doesn’t know.

            Our Clover is a real piece of work. It will argue that people are selfish for wanting to drive faster but then argue defending drivers that pull out and force others to brake, stop, or take other evasive action because otherwise they would have to wait too long for a gap in traffic. Selfish in the clover world is anything where someone stands up for himself against their control freakism and theft of resources.

            • Hi Brent,

              Some Clovers are simply unintelligent; they lack the capability to reason. They literally cannot understand our arguments because they cannot think conceptually. Such Clovers are reactive, like trained domestic animals.

              The intelligent Clovers are more narcissistic, some crossing over to more extreme pathologies. They take the view – explicitly, in some cases – that they are smarter/wiser than the human cattle out there and by dint of that, noblesse oblige, the natural rulers of humanity.”All for a good cause” – etc.

              Our Clover is clearly among the unintelligent cohort; an “outer party” Clover.

  43. Slow merger/pull out clover. Pull out, in front of you of course, and take a few minutes to reach speed, often being of a fast pace such as 35mph. There’s also the come to a near full stop (no stop sign) then turn clover.

    Eric, how much cloverism is a result of current police behavior?

    • Hi Salt,

      “How much cloverism is a result of current police behavior?”

      I think a great deal. It’s Auschwitz Syndrome. Keep your head down. Submit, obey.

      I don’t know why I’m not wired like that. All I can do is shake my head in wonder… and disgust.

      • Unfortunately much of that is cost, both in ticket, court, and insurance. I know costs of court have risen substantially, to well over $100. TPTB hit us where it counts. Hitting back in the same manner is proper; deny them.

        I’ve always thought that if people could come together and for a few month obey all traffic laws… their coffers would substantially suffer. Of course, that’s a pipe dream.

        It’s not really about submit, obey (compliance)… it’s the money, honey.

        • Salt,
          In NJ and IIRC New Mexico, it’s been upheld that PERFECT driving is now probable cause to pull someone over.
          Both cases resulted in search, and something was found. (I’ll waive debating whether it was found or “found,” as I have no evidence either way.)
          Sounds to me like driving the speed limit, using turn signals, sitting up straight, having both hands on the wheel – the “proper” way to drive, according to the manual – is now being used to harm us. So, if we obey the laws, or break them, we’re criminals either way.

          So I think you are right literally, and wrong in execution. If everyone “banded together” and carefully and conscientiously obeyed ALL the laws for a few days, forget weeks or months, we’d just see more roadblocks, more no-knocks, more civilian fatalities at the hands of “didn’t do nothing wrong” pigs.

          Which brings me back to the consequences….
          They live somewhere.
          They sleep.
          They have families.

          We have means, but no motives. We can solve each others’ problems simply by publishing LEO’s home addresses, and allow the free market to weed out the bad ones. I can make an occasional road trip, and I relocate regularly for business anyway….

          • the market has infinite myriads of solutions, unlike state authoritarianism, yours is certainly a valid one. we’re the got damn cyberspace railroad, we can haul our freight everywhere anonymously, digitally, imperceptibly…

            if we know where they are, we can study them, burglarize their empty home. steal their vehicles parked outside. graffiti their fences. liberate their pets. steal their identities. throw great parties in their names on their credit. order them 24 hours of transvestite hooker companionship. endless things really in a

            slow relentless escalation like the song Bolero but our version, an Anarcho-Bolero over hours, days, weeks even.

            Just like in the vid, we can go all pedagogical on them!

            Not only escalate like in a one minute roadside exchange that ends with wood shampooing and gunning someone down. Much more subtle. Harder to defend against. And fun to orchestrate, I’d say.

        • “I’ve always thought that if people could come together and for a few month obey all traffic laws… their coffers would substantially suffer.”

          Nah, they would just make up whatever crime they wanted to fine someone for and pin it on the nearest driver. They know that most are cowering sheep that will take it in the ass and say ‘yes sir, may I have another’.

      • Principle #4 of the Nuremberg trials. You’re just as guilty even if you were following unlawful orders. It’s how they (the system) get at you. Doing anything they say is seen as compliance. Stop that 😉

  44. The hyper-milers have an laudable goal – saving fuel. I get it. But they need to be more selective when they apply the technique. Rush hour is not the time for this.

    The people that leave huge gaps in front of them are a personal irritation of mine. Use your rear-view mirror – if someone is on your bumper and no one is in front of you — you’re driving too slowly for the lane you’re in. Move over.

    A few years ago I enticed someone on I-40 who had a tractor-beam lock on me up to 85 mph by gradually increasing my speed. They were oblivious, until they suddenly realized they were at *Ludicrous Speed* and hit the brakes. I lol’d. (sometimes I’m bad that way)

  45. Eric why do you imagine that your time………..be real your ‘work’ is writing a hobby blog for donations……….is more valuable than the gasoline clover pays for with real currency ? Just what do you feel that he owes you?Clover

    • Clover does not owe me anything, Mike. Except for one thing: I demand that he not lay hands on me (or have proxies do so on his behalf). I expect him to live his life – and leave me alone to live mine. Such a simple concept. Yet one that aggressively violent Clovers such as yourself apparently cannot comprehend.

      PS: I’ve been making my living as a writer for decades. Has anyone ever paid you to write anything?

    • why must you clovers always act like asking others to pay you for your work is somehow demeaning? you’re such a sad little girl, trying to push eric’s buttons and verbally castrate him, instead of at least TRYING to be a man, and pursuing your own objectives and swinging your own dick for yourself

      you’re a creepy monster who unthinkingly supports a system that murders thousands every day. don’t act like you’re the good guy here. you know you’re human wretched refuse, pathetically attempting to project your own self-loathing onto others instead of facing the unmitigated disaster you surely are

      conventional wisdom is 9 out of 10 businesses are hobbies.(aka they fail. they lose more money than they earn)

      whatever taxes clover pays, if he really drives as much as he says, get thrown a rat hole of unrestrained spending. NO ONE believes that roads and road taxes are some kind of legitimate enterprise where users pay for services.

      • Roads are paid for by fuel excise, some 40% of the fuel price (in Oz at least). Everything else besides such is unlawful double-dipping by the State.

          • Heh.. nice pick up there Salt. “Un” would be the negative or the opposite of the word that follows. In any case, you cannot tax a tax or tax something twice, unless you call it something else, such as excise, levy, fee, fine etc. It’s a slimy and unlawful practice.

            Some years ago here we had a goods and services tax brought in, which attracts a 10% tax on just about anything other than fresh food. I notice that traffic and parking fines don’t attract GST. So they’re a tax.

            A while ago we had a class action suit here in Oz against the ANZ (Australia and New Zealand) bank. They were claiming fees on credit card accounts that were overdrawn.

            The court ruled that the fees were a “penalty” – that only courts can award.

            Finally, some justice. All banks since then had to stop claiming these fees.

        • HI Revo, go to this link for some eyeopeners on Australian law and how you can fight back, lots of good info. Info that may be useful to other peoples on this forum. I’ve downloaded all 5 podcasts and they are real eye openers.


          The station stream only over the web. These shows, lasting 2 hours each, are put up in podcasts 2 days after the show so they can be downloaded and saved on your computer.

    • Work is worth what people will pay you for.
      We have people paid to play video games, these days.
      I don’t mean testers, either.
      We have people paid to steal from others – tax collectors.
      People paid to fish.
      People paid to hang-glide. To Bungie jump. To do card tricks, ride bicycles, ride motorcycles, climb mountains….

      To NOT grow corn.
      NOT grow wheat.
      NOT grow … Well, ANYTHING.

      to sit and watch TV all day, watching real-time “reality TV.” And push buttons so that halfway around the world, some goat herder and his family are incinerated or burned and left to die.

      Best be careful talking about what is and is not “work.” I’m jonesing for a pig roast… I figure odds are on my side: no record, no motive, and gas and matches are cheap. Just need to leave the sail fawn home – I haven’t been RFID’d yet.

      I even know it’s a losing battle… But the rewards, it’s a win-win either way. You and yours demonstrate you’ll accept ANY violence, ANY excess, in the name of WHAT YOU WANT – or you go extinct. You hunt me down – that’s option 1, given you can’t tell the difference between old women delivering newspapers and a 230# or so black man driving a different vehicle… It’s costly to you, leaves others free to do real damage, gets the public mind asking questions, etc.
      Or, you wait in hiding and hope I don’t catch the public eye & mind & heart…. And find your next-door neighbor is a pyromaniac who uses my “cover” to get back at you for the ticket you wrote two years ago.

      It’s a losing game no matter what, for you. SO GLAD YOU PLAYED….

      • Cue “Mad Magizine” lyrics:
        I don’t plant cotton.
        I don’t plant ‘taters.
        But I gits paid by the legislators,
        for plantin’ nuthin’
        for plantin’ nuthin’ at all.

  46. In some states you still can get paying paper in construction zones if you do not obey the PSL signs. (even if no one is working)

    Especially if I am from another state, I will reduce my speed. I have no desire to get any paying paper or worse from John Q. Law.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here