Lock-Down Nation

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

While waiting for a dentist appointment, I was listening to a news report about NewYork City being on “lockdown” because of snow. Only the official vehicles of the anointed were at liberty to be out and about. Ordinary citizens were subject to arrest merely for daring to attempt travel. It reminded me of the old Soviet Union (long forgotten by most Americans, perhaps because we’re living in the Soviet Union now). Of party bigwigs in their ZIL limos, broad avenues empty except for them.

This is of a piece with the lockdown of Boston – citizens forbidden to leave their homes and government goons at liberty to enter them at will (and frog-march the occupants out).

Always for “safety.”

Does it make you feel safe?

If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079clover2

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)



  1. Wow, what a ill harbinger this was for things to come.

    Also, Clover was still in action, apparently being a relentless pain-in-the-ass.

    • Hi BaDnOn,

      Yup – and that was spoken worded outside of the office of the dentist who refused to see me last year for refusing to play kabuki!

  2. Funny how this was introduced (would have been unheard of in the 20th century, especially the early to middle part when it was a kinda free place) in the 2010s, almost like it was in preparation for something…

  3. This thread popped up in the “feed“ on this site and I noticed it was almost 6 years ago. Interesting theme of weather creating the basis for the gov’ts overreaching emergency powers. It’s certainly the case in NC where hurricanes (mostly hype, occasionally dangerous to property, rarely fatal to humans) were/are the excuse. The county attorney I spoke to referenced weather emergencies as conveying an almost mystical and certainly unlimited power to gov’t. A power we’ve seen expanded and consolidated without a peep this year in a so-called war against inherent aspects of humanity, sickness and death. Talk about tilting at windmills. Incremental tyranny claiming legitimacy via precedent in real time. Incredible.

  4. If you have been injured in a ski or snowboard accident, you deserve to know your legal rights. Most ski states have passed ski safety acts – ski law is unique to the state. Since each state has a different set ski laws, the ski injury claims available to an injured skier or snowboarder vary with the location of the ski accident. However, the law makes no distinction between ski law and snowboarding law.

    This website [ http://skilaw.com/ ] provides information on significant ski accident cases and ski injury claims arising from skier collisions, ski lift accidents, ski area negligence and wrongful death claims. Many of these ski accidents provide the case law which governs injury claims arising in a particular state. Other ski accident cases demonstrate the application of ski law, typically set out as a ski safety act, or recognized case law involving ski accidents. An experienced ski lawyer is needed to effectively pursue ski injury claims following a ski accident.

    Each ski accident is unique, but most fall into a category such as skier collisions, ski lift accidents or ski resort negligence. Our ski lawyers have published extensively in the area of ski law and a list of pertinent ski law articles is provided.

    Many of the articles provide a national overview of ski and avalanche law. Most of these articles have been published by legal journals or presented at professional seminars. Since most ski accident claims are governed by state law, a survey with current ski law for each state is also provided.
    = = =

    It has been a challenging week for skiing in the Northeast. A skier died yesterday in an accident on an expert trail at the Sunday River ski area in Maine. The 35-year-old man died in a ski accident. He was found at the bottom of Black Hole, an expert trail on Aurora Peak around 11 a.m., said Steve McCausland, a Maine State Police spokesman.

    The skier veered off the trail into trees. Though the skier was wearing a helmet, he was found unresponsive and thought to have died of a head injury, McCausland said.

    A snowboarder died after crashing into a tree at Sunshine Village Ski Resort on Monday has been identified as a Banff local by the resort. Sunshine Village spokesperson Crosbie Cotton said the man in his early 30s was snowboarding on Banff Ave Trail, a beginner’s run, when he hit the tree.

    STARS air ambulance was dispatched to Banff, but was called down when the patient died. Sunshine Village is located about 140 kilometres west of Calgary.

    At Killington Ski Resort, a New Hampshire man was skiing with a group of friends when he swerved to avoid another skier, struck a tree and died, police said. The skiers were coming down the Northbrook Trail around 1:20 p.m. Saturday afternoon when they went to make a turn onto the trail leading to the Ledgewood Yurt. Both were intermediate trails located near the Snowshed Lodge, said Michael Joseph, communications and public relations manager at Killington.

    The skier was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, but it was found next to him by rescue workers. It is unknown whether it was clasped at the time of collision. No drugs or alcohol seemed to be involved at all in the young skier’s death, but a toxicology report has been ordered. Rutland Regional Medical Center professionals reported that the autopsy appeared to show signs of significant head and torso trauma, most likely causing Scott’s death.

    On Saturday, Cole Anderson was killed in a tragic skiing accident at Whistler-Blackcomb on Saturday. He was part of a ski-racing group that was visiting Whistler-Blackcomb for a weekend of training and free-skiing. Anderson, an expert skier, was skiing in an in-bounds area on Blackcomb when he went over a cliff, falling over 20 feet and landing on an area covered with very little snow. He died at the scene.

    Anderson was free skiing with his teammates and coach after a day of ski race training at the Dave Murray National Training Centre on Whistler Mountain. They had just completed a challenging run on Blackcomb and were on their last run when he slipped and fell over a cliff.

    Just last week, Sean Paradis, 23, died from injuries suffered in a snowboarding accident at Bretton Woods Ski Resort. Paradis died on March 17 at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. He had been rushed to the hospital five days earlier, after a snowboard-related accident during an outing with coworkers.

    – After reading this, I think skiing should be completely outlawed immediately. It’s one thing to drive a car, at least it is a necessary activity. There is no need or right to ski. Our society is burdened with enough debt as it is. By completely removing the dangerous recreational act of skiing, we will all have a little more money in our pockets. And our health and safety systems will be that much less stretched beyond their capacity to keep us all safe and sound. [ http://www.skisafety-blog.com/ski-safety/four-ski-fatalities-in-past-week/ ]

  5. A quick glance at actuarial data shows that skiing is significantly more dangerous than driving. The stereotypical picture of a skier is someone in a leg cast for crom’s sake.

    This eight year old broke her leg skiing at the Junior Olympics. Obviously it’s unsafe to ski until you are of a more responsible age. I propose 16 years of age as the minimum age where you are allowed to ski on a mountain. 13 years of age should be the youngest you should be allowed to cross country ski. This is only reasonable and prudent rules for everyone’s well being.

    Just out of spite, I’d like to make it so noone is allowed to ski without a qualified ski permit holder in front of them at all times. Once the unlicensed skier demonstrates his competence and gets his certificate and RFID photo ID, then I support his being allowed to ski, but only in accordance with all necessary ski safety statutes and regulations. The RFID will help locate any skier who ends up off the trail or caught in an avalanche.

    Causing avalanches should also be made a felony. It’s not fair the rest of us have to be killed or endangered by your unnecessary recreational dare deviling. The permit and skiing ID fees will help pay for those who don’t want people to do dangerous things like ski in the first place.

  6. If, as Clover claims, it takes too long to wait for a gap in the traffic before entering the expressway, there is only one reason for that. Our benevolent overseers have failed to plan properly and provide sufficient space on the highways, resulting in overcrowding.
    Well, there is one other possibility – Clover is a spoiled brat that does not want to wait for her proper turn. And since none of the motorists already on the road would buy her normal “there ought to be a law” rant in this case, she has just made up her own law. Heavens to Murgatroyd – she’s an anarchist!

    • Yup.

      Also: Clover doesn’t want to be troubled to accelerate at a pace sufficient to not cause interruption to traffic. He expects you to slow down to accommodate him while he gently and oh-so-slowly accelerates his Clovermobile to just under the PSL.

      • Why do the engineers bother to design the roads with on (and off) ramps? Clover is not smart enough to figure out what they are for and how to properly use them.

  7. Commie MIT economist Chase and commie engineers Kallet & Schlink form Consumers Research. Consumers Research begets Consumers Union. Consumers Union begets Consumer Reports.

    Stuart Chase’s writings covered topics as diverse as general semantics and physical economy. Chase’s thought was shaped by Henry George, economic philosopher Thorstein Veblen, Fabian socialism, as well as the Communist social and educational experiments being conducted in the Soviet Union around 1930.

    Chase spent his early political career supporting “a wide range of reform causes: the single tax, women’s suffrage, birth control and socialism.

    Chase’s early books The Tragedy of Waste (1925) and Your Money’s Worth (1928) were notable for their criticism of corporate advertising and their advocacy of consumer protection.

    Stuart Chase served as an advisor to President F.D.R.

    Chase is famous for the quote at the end of his book A New Deal, “Why should the Soviets have all the fun remaking a world?” – a reference to the “socialist experiment” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Free Enterprise into ‘X’
    In The Road We Are Traveling, under the heading of “Free Enterprise into ‘X'”, Chase listed 18 characteristics of political economy that he had observed among Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain between 1913 and 1942.

    Chase labeled this phenomenon “… something called ‘X'”. Characteristics include the following:

    1 A strong, centralized government.
    2 An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.
    3 The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government.
    4 The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
    5 The underwriting of social security by the government – old-age pensions, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
    6 The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government.
    7 The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings.
    8 The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
    9 The control of foreign trade by the government.
    10 The control of natural resources.
    11 The control of energy sources.
    12 The control of transportation.
    13 The control of agricultural production.
    14 The control of labor organizations.
    15 The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline,community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.
    16 Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
    17 Control of industry without ownership.
    18 State control of communications and propaganda.

    – Engineers post Chase, Kallet, and Schlink are often some of the most evil actors on the face of the earth.

    Many a capable would be man of science surrenders his superior grasp of reality and nature, and instead becomes a coward second hander, always checking what is the law. What is the custom. What is the course of action that yields the least risk and pain.

    Rather than taking his rightful place as a builder and maintainer of our world. He becomes an exceptionally useful idiot of the blathering conmen and uplifter dogooder decepticons, who now rule our earth.

    Fuck the Consumer Union Commie Engineers. Feed them a steady diet of mass-produced un-tested artificial fish heads.

    Un-American Activities
    Colston Warne testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, when it investigated charges of Communism in the consumer movement.

    Speaking in 1954 to have Consumers Union removed from the list of subversive organizations, Warne said, “I am an upstate New York Yankee… I am not a Communist.

    100 million guinea pigs Kallet & Schlink

    In 1936 Kallet left as director of Consumers Research after its head F.J. Schlink fired three striking employees who had tried to form a union, and joined with Amherst College professor Colston Warne to found Consumers Union and Consumer Reports.

    The House Un-American Activities Committee cited Arthur Kallet as the communist head of Consumers Union, which it cited as a communist front.

    Eat Drink and Be Wary.

    – is there now the least bit of difference between today’s upstate New York Yankee, and a classic 100% red blooded Communist from the days of Stalin and Mao, I ask you?

  8. hodor.

    Inside baseball on the cloverian mental process.

    hodor is sum total of the societal indoctrinations and conditionings and it is all that exists in a clover’s mind.

    Just as when you come to know your pet well enough, you interpret his various barks and cries. A site owner or frequent visitor to epautos may come to know the one true clover troll well enough to decipher his seemingly identical and repetitive responses.

    One may become able to channel the hodors of the clover. To those who know hodor from game of thrones, they hear a slightly different meaning to each instance of his saying “hodor”. In exactly the same way, each jumble of fearful word salad of a clover, each “hodor” may mean: safety. who will build the roads. libertarians and anyone who does not contribute to the hodor, is evil. your an idiot.

    In the beginning, it seems that each time a clover speaks, he says the identical canned things. But if you truly know your clover, if you know the various hodors of the clover, it is only then you can begin to truly understand the clover.


  9. the the guy called me a liar when the facts were against him should I kiss his ass?

    We can be sure clover is a Virgo.Virgos like him are the worst kind of the twelve zodiac signs. He’s all about worry and shyness.

    He’s eight times worse than Scorpios, who are passionate and resourceful.

    What Does Your Zodiac Sign Say About Your Driving? Shy and Cautious Virgos more likely to get into an accident, according to Allstate.

    The new sign, Ophiuchus, faired well in the study as the second-safest drivers on the road. While the jury is still out on the exact characteristics of an Ophiuchus, most astrologers seem to indicate individuals born under this sign will be a bit luckier than the rest.

    But, can an astrological sign really influence driving habits?

    Generally, the signs with the fewest number of reported accidents were those associated with traits like “compassion,” “graciousness” and “resourcefulness” where those with more accidents tended to be more “uncompromising,” “arrogant” and “impatient.”

    Below is a breakdown by Zodiac sign of the 3 best and 3 worst drivers on the road.

    Best 3 signs with least accidents

    Sign. Birthdates. Key personality traits
    Annual number of drivers involved in accidents

    Scorpio. November 23 – November 28. Passionate, resourceful

    Ophiuchus. November 29 – December 17. Wise, ambitious, lucky

    Cancer. July 21 – August 9. Compassion, sensitivity

    Worst 3 signs with least accidents

    Taurus. May 14 – June 19. Uncompromising, possessive

    Leo. August 10 – September 15. Arrogance, inflexibility

    Virgo. September 16 – October 30. Worry, shyness

    Clovers are arrogant, inflexible, worriers, and too shy to admit their deficiencies and ask their betters for help. They’re destined to be horrible drivers. Because it’s in their stars.

  10. Lock Down Nation: SW Gitmo High Desert Update:

    Obamacare Fatwa 2015-Jul-04

    Nudge Protocol: Unlawful excessive sitting while morbidly obese

    American’s sedentary lifestyle is literally killing us the same way that smoking and poor body and oral hygiene does.

    If you see someone excessively sitting say something.

    After just 20 minutes of sitting, your body thinks you’ve gone to sleep and responds accordingly. Metabolism slows, cholesterol levels go up, blood sugar spikes, and triglycerides — the components of fat — rise as well. The long-term effects of sitting are quite severe. Experts at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center performed a 12-year study on 17,000 Canadians aged 18-90. They found that regardless of age, body weight, or exercise levels, people who spent more time sitting ended up dying earlier. Even breaks as short as one minute can improve your health, and frequent postural changes also help the body stay mobile.

    After 30 minutes of continuous sitting, anyone with an MO class body type will hear an increasingly loud tone until they get up and remain ambulatory for at least one minute. If an alarm goes off more than 5 minutes, your social responsibility account will accrue 5 demerit points and authorities may be contacted to escalate the infraction according to local statute.

    These demerits are added to your annual hygiene credit score total which includes excessive body odor, excessive body dirt and bacteria, excessive mouth bacteria and plaque, and excessive fecal matter detection demerits. Your health affects everyone, let’s move, let’s stay clean, let’s brush and floss, America! It’s the law.

  11. Clover, you always speak in the second person in the passive voice. Using a time reference of things already past. Or not yet happened. All your verbs are about what some other group of people has done. Or is going to do. So many pronouns. So many uses of the word you.

    When you finally write “I will call my friends to block you house…” it really stands out as a red letter moment. You rarely ever write like that. Clearly the reason is, you’re lying. You don’t have any friends. You haven’t had any friends for a long time. This is clear because you never change.

    You can’t write in the active first person, because you’re never active. You never take any initiative, rather you are only reactive. You’ve never been first, ever. And you’re not even a person. You’re just regurgitating echoes of things you’ve seen on the teevee or heard in the newzzz. You can’t even remember what you’ve ever done personally, because that was so very long ago.

    You’re less than the Walking Dead. You’re the reacting dead. The button pushing dead. The wake up and feed yourself and fill your empty hours alone during the day as a catatonic corpse dead. The discontinued Disney animatron that worries and frets. And waits in some back warehouse for some imagined technician coming to repair and update your software and put you back out in commission with all the new more fully featured fembots. But this never happens. You’re long forgotten and far obsolete. It’s been so long since you’ve had a human moment, you can’t even remember one, and you’re not even lonely anymore, because this dull solitude is all you know.

    You never write or talk with anyone, and that is why your latest comment is no different than your first all those years ago. Because you’re not engaged in any give or take either online or in real life. You’re a stagnant echo and faded dissipated force that no longer makes any sense to anyone but yourself.

  12. Hey Clover – your ignorance about farming/ranching in general and Texas in particular is astounding.
    Many of these men (and they are real men, even if a few may be women) have multiple herds, spread over areas nearly as large as Rhode Island. They can’t ‘camp out’ with all of them. Yes, if the weather is severe enough, some of the livestock may suffer and die. Who bears the financial loss? Not you, and not your ‘rich’ Uncle either. It’s called risk and responsibility.

  13. clover why do remain in the orbit of this blog. you are like the lonely trojan 2010 TK7 forever out of sync with everyone here. obscure and oscillating in the wake of all of us living our actual lives. perhaps we have our problems, maybe i’m in hiding, and i’ve failed everyone who counted on me. but at least i am a real human. as are the rest of us here, except the bots in the spam queue and the trash zone. what did you do today? did anyone notice anything you did today. or ever. can you confirm you’re human?

    i recognize i have control issues, and am often unable to conform to the expected format and content of this comment section. i’m working on that, but it is a struggle, when i myself am somewhat of a foreign body myself.

    i live on a planet, but am not planetary in my behavior either. unlike planets, i do little or no work clearing my neighbouring region of planetesimals. i’m unconcerned with who is around me, i’m not troubled that someone like you is hear, dogging our path, telling us all to end our lives if we hate the state so much.

    quite unlike you, fortunately, at least one in a hundred or so commentors here finds some value in what i say. or some such ratio. when, if ever has anyone, at any time, had anything positive to say about your contributions in your entire history on this world of bipedal man-sized planets.

    no one enjoys your contributions. no one knows anything about you either, because you won’t disclose anything about yourself at all. maybe you’re here because you know libertarians have guns. maybe you’re trying to find the courage to purchase or borrow your own weapon. you wonder what it must be like to have the means of ending your own life easily at your fingertips, yet never even considering doing so. maybe you endure all your mistreatment here because you secretly dislike yourself enough that you wish you no longer existed.

    well don’t do that. live free, don’t die. even if in your case it means only to be free to service a vast eusocial hive of humanity. i know things must be bad, since this is your own thread of connection to humanity that remains in your isolated non-existence.

    you do seem creepily comfortable here, with no confirmation you even exist from any of us. are you sure you’re even real. maybe you’re just an AI spam bot who became sentient. did you have a childhood and a mother. or is your past a hazy fog of offering to show people their credit scores, or enlarge their penises.

    why don’t slow down or speed up and stop being a lagrangian point loner, and fall to earth like the rest of us. i too dream of getting away from this planetary life. with the orbits, and the gravity, and all the rules. but i would do so in the crowd of rolling stone rebels just like me. out in the belt beyond Mars and before Jupiter.

    though it’s unlikely i’ll ever break free and achieve escape velocity and go live on Ceres, Pallas, Juno, or Vesta free of the archy of orbital mechanization. i’ll never reach true anarchy, so i have to stay here, and be as free as i can, while bound to the repetitious rotations of mundane planetary reality as long as I live.

    i don’t know you, but here you are. i’m not a sun or a planet trying to draw you in and bring you under my control. and i’m certain not attracted to your puny to non-existent gravity and imagine no alternate universe where you could pull me or anyone really to orbit you or your void of empty unoccupied vacuum. where do you see yourself in ten years. still haunting this blog, or will you finally find something real to pursue with your time and your life?

  14. Now I’m going to come over to Jean’s way of thinking, sorry for my prior malthought. Having read more of Mary Croft. Sometimes what’s right sounds wrong on the face of it. How can it make sense to start killing government lackeys? You need only to reflect a little to realize why this may be the stone cold correct action after all…
    – – – – –

    We must “take the law into our own hands” and forget all about Statute. I do not advocate ‘murder’ however, keep in mind that the definition of murder is the “senseless killing” of another. What must occur is the “sensible” putting out of commission, those who are destroying us.

    Man possesses the Natural Right to defend himself, from violence, with any amount of force necessary to stop the attack, up to and including deadly force.

    THAT, not “love, light, and peace”, IS Natural Law.

    Over the years, I’ve observed the circumstances under which we either do or do not forgive.

    When I realized that ALL propaganda is about 90% truth –for the purpose of gaining our confidence– and the final 10% is the scam, I began to see that same final 10% in A Course In Miracles.

    When I took another look at it, about 3 years ago, and its prime theory –that of forgiveness– I was forced to ask: Who benefits? The popular thinking is that we all do, as the result is peace of mind and peace with our fellow man. I did believe this until I began to discover otherwise.

    I noticed it first within myself; then I noticed the hypocrisy of other people who claimed to have forgiven someone, yet, by their deeds, revealed that they had not. A year ago, I heard a woman lecture about forgiving a man who had held her daughter for ransom and, in the months it took her to raise the ransom, her daughter’s health was destroyed.

    The woman spoke of her rage, torment, grief, etc. but found that the only way to escape how she felt was to forgive him. I might have believed her had I not overheard what she had to say, to a select group, after the lecture.

    There is no question that very few of us can come to terms with anyone who has caused us huge harm or loss. Even for cases of very little harm or loss, it seems we cannot forgive without, at least, an apology.

    Again, I wondered, then, who, if not we, benefits from this concept? For all the horrors that people have suffered at the hands of the Vatican/Crown/Bank and all their subsidiary agencies (the list is endless), if they have convinced us to “forgive” and that “love is the answer whatever the question”, then, their intent and hope is that, when we figure out the details of this phenomenal abuse, we might just overlook the fact that, were the situation reversed, we would be severely punished.

    We have all heard the cliché, “If men ran their businesses the way the government operates, they would be out of business in a day.” So, I wonder why we are being taught to forgive. Forgiveness is neither instinctive nor a natural solution to having been harmed. No animal forgives the one who abuses it.

    Jurors must have the same qualities, experiences, and knowledge of the man who is accused; i.e.: knowing that no man can be charged, 1. by a legal fiction; or, 2. under Statute. That would be the end of all court cases, except claims by one man against another.

    Those of us who have been harmed must assemble, and do whatever is necessary to take down the insipid, stupid people who work for and protect legal fictions, and that their job is to cause us harm and loss. I often wonder if people truly grasp what types of low-lifes we all are having to deal with every gotdam day.

    We can no longer simply “stay out of their way”; they are actively and deliberately intruding in our lives and attacking us. We all admit to feeling slight anxiety when we see a cop car.

    This was unheard of until 30 years ago; in part, because we don’t see cops anywhere BUT in cars. Cops used to mosey the streets of town, chatting with vendors and townsfolk.

    I have lived in a several small towns, over the past 30 years and have not once seen a cop walking his beat, looking for people whom he can assist. Prior to that, I was stopped by cops, at least 6 times that I can recall, and all were friendly and helpful.

    Get yourself a megaphone and yell this at them, “Whatever you do to me, you can count on someone doing that to your children.”

    Certainly, we forgive people in our lives whom we love and with whom we want to continue a friendship, but what triggers it? An apology.

    Prior to an apology, the matter is still “out there –in the ether”. Without an apology, the matter cannot be put to rest and, in those cases, as much as people like to say they have forgiven, they have not. Most of us do have compassion, but even that is short-lived if the offender shows no remorse. We are given NO compassion by the ones who judge us.

    True, in a sense, all our behaviour is forgivable, as most of it is simply due to our traumatic childhood programming. But we, the people, get punished for our behaviour, whilst we cannot even access those who deliberately damage the planet and the people on it.

    We must NOT forgive that, as doing so is utterly illogical. We must end this by causing them as much fear, harm, and loss as they have caused us.

    It is NOT up to God to judge; it is up to us; and Jesus is NOT coming to play ‘saviour’; it is we who must save us from those who are doing the damage.

    For millennia, people have been praying to God, so, either they are being completely ignored, by “God”, or what we’re experiencing IS, indeed, God’s will, in which case, God is Evil.

    Jesus’ “second coming” is just more propaganda from those who want us to continue to WAIT and DO NOTHING. Christians have been phenomenally duped by those whose intent it is to destroy not only us but also the entire planet.

    I don’t know why we’re here and I’d bet no one else knows, either.

    “Forgiveness” was presented to us by psychopaths, to convince us –once we caught onto their fraud– to forgive them, rather than hang them up by their balls which is what they deserve. Well, we’ve caught on, so now it’s time to round them up.

  15. Chicago is an important trading and production hub, being shut down for a day would be an economic catastrophe.*

    Chicago economic data

    The city’s annual gross domestic product is $571.008 Billion.**

    So one business day of lost production due to fear of inclement weather would mean a loss of $571.008/252 or $2.266 billion dollars.

    It would be far cheaper to tow every single vehicle than close Chicago down.

    As to a few people dying due to roads being closed. Since when did the government ever care about that.

    People exist to provide wealth that is extracted for government purposes. If a few people have to die so the engine of commerce can keep churning to power the government, so be it.

    *Chicago accounts for 18% of the global derivatives trading market; more than New York (14%), and nearly as much as all exchanges in Europe (20%). Chicago exchanges generate 3.8 billion in annual global derivatives trading volume, 25% more than New York. Chicago-based Options Clearing Corporation clears all US options contracts – 4.1 billion in 2013. Chicago futures and options exchanges collectively dominate exchange-based derivatives trading, Chicago performs half of the exchange-based derivatives trading in North America.

    **List of cities by GDP

  16. The race of the statists. And the race of the anarchists just may not mix. A two state solution might be the only solution. Where one of the states is no state of all, of course.

    The new Non-State is one that can be built right now. With no permission or negotiation required.

    By programmers and financial backers who no longer wish to be part of the current state system.

    This new Non-State will exist on the Blockchain 2.0. On the newly created Ethereum Platform.

    There will no longer need to be any authorities or trusted third parties. Ethereum is a platform and a programming language that makes it possible for any developer to build and publish next-generation distributed applications.

    These apps can perform all current functions of authorities. Settle disputes. Provide protections. Build and maintain infrastructures. We can be part of the Genesis Generation, and leave everything we know of the old brick and mortar institutional world behind.

    Ether, Ethereum’s cryptofuel, powers the applications on the decentralized network.

    Ethereum can be used to codify, decentralize, secure and trade just about anything: voting, domain names, financial exchanges, crowdfunding, company governance, contracts and agreements of most kind, intellectual property, and even smart property thanks to hardware integration.

    Ethereum borrows the concept of decentralized consensus that makes bitcoin so resilient, yet makes it trivial to build on its foundation. To find out more about how Ethereum works, consult the white and yellow papers.


    Somewhere in this new world of blockchains and cryptocurrencies lies the seed of the next online revolution — one that brings radical decentralisation, autonomous organisations, a cull of brokers and fixers, a new constraint on government and fiat currencies, and a supercharge to the sharing economy.

    it’s hard to get away from the idea that these trends point inevitably to an age of cryptocurrency, if not immediately, then a decade or so in the future.


  17. Where does race-mixing lead to? Ask the 4 million Native Americans. Who numbered 50 million when the Europeans arrived and “mixed” with them to their near evisceration and detriment.

    Ask the Southern Planters and property owners. Who were massacred and “mixed” by the conscripted armies of the Northern Yankees to their complete annihilation and extermination.

    I have no opinion as to what race mates with what race. But perhaps that is strategically fatal. Without standards, how will I recognized when my society is hijacked and shanghaied into oblivion. Perhaps I am making a subtle left wing error in my thinking.

    More Guillamume Faye that also applies to America in a modified form I would argue…

    The cornerstone of the modern ideology of progress and individualistic egalitarianism — and the basis upon which the thought police have been set up to destroy the people’s rights to exist as a people.

    As a synthesis of Eighteenth-century political philosophy (often badly understood), human rights is the inescapable horizon of the dominant ideology.

    With anti-racism, it becomes the central reference point for all collective forms of mental conditioning, for ready-made thought, and for the paralysis of all revolt. Profoundly hypocritical, human rights ideology accommodates every form of social misery and justifies every form of oppression. It functions as a veritable secular religion.

    The ‘human’ in human rights is nothing but an abstraction, a consumer-client, an atom. It says everything that human rights ideology originated with the Conventionnels of the French Revolution, in imitation of American Puritans.

    Human rights ideology has succeeded in legitimating itself on the basis of two historical impostures: that of charity and philanthropy — and that of freedom.

    ‘Humans’ (already a vague notion) possess no fixed or universal rights, only those bequeathed by their civilisation, by their tradition.

    Against human rights, it’s necessary to oppose two key ideas: that of the rights of a people to an identity and that of justice (which varies according to culture and presumes that all individuals are not equally praiseworthy). These two notions do not rest on the presumption of an abstract universal man, but rather on actual men, localised within their specific culture.

    To criticise the secular religion of human rights is obviously no apology for savage behaviour, though on numerous occasions human rights have been used to justify barbarism and oppression (the genocidal repression of the Vendée during the French Revolution or the extermination of Amerindians).

    Human rights ideology has often been the pretext for persecutions: in the name of the ‘Good’. It no more protects the rights of individuals than did Communism. Just the opposite, for it has imposed a new system of oppression, based on purely formalistic freedoms.
    Under its auspices and in contempt of all democracy, it legitimises the Third World’s colonisation of Europe, tolerating freedom-killing delinquencies, supporting wars of aggression carried out in the name of humanitarianism, and refusing to deport illegal immigrants; this ideology never speaks out against the environmental pollution it causes or the social savagery of its globalised economy.

    The ideology of human rights is above all strategically used to disarm European peoples, by making them feel guilty about almost everything. It thus authorises their disarmament and paralysis. It’s a sort of corruption of Christian charity and its egalitarian dogma that all individuals should be valued equally before God and Man.

    The ideology of human rights is the principal weapon being used today to destroy Europe’s identity and to advance the interests of her alien colonisers.

  18. In the bigger picture, clover is inarticulately trying to advance the elite agenda is his own feeble way.

    We are already held down and a mob is laying their hands on us and forcing their will on us. Merely stopping clover from joining in, is a weak victory at best.

    It’s useful intellectually to refute clover. But is it really possible to reason our way out of an ongoing onslaught of attacks. Or rather do we first need to recognize our attackers and take necessary actions to remove ourselves from their clutches.

    We can of course, ignore our predicament and proceed as if we were free. One way to combat cloverism is to formulate and advance our own agenda. To describe in detail what we would be doing, if only we weren’t pinned to the ground and be pummeled day and night.

    Another thing that might be done, is untangle and refute all the distortions and lies the crony elite works so very hard to establish and maintain. If only Americans had the power to assess themselves without the distortions and false narratives of those in power.

    In other words, what does mainstream America really want and believe, if only we were somehow able to freely investigate this without interference by those in power.

    The majority of us would say we are European Americans. We are the offspring of a fatherland filled with accomplished tribes, a family of kindred spirits.

    Both here in New Europe, and over their in Old Europe, we are politically fragmented, though mostly united on essentials. We nearly all favor the defense of the best of our traditions of civilization.

    It’s not merely a eugenics thing. Not that we see ourselves as merely a breed of men. Though that is what European means. Broad faces and wide eyes. Rather we consider ourselves various component sectarians of an overall whole of European nationalisms.

    Now that the house of European men is on fire, is it not prudent that we should put away domestic disputes. To find common ground and agreement of those who find value in European Civilization as broadly and inclusively imagined.

    European Americans need to take back the language and spheres of dispute and division. Not continue our silence in the face of intimidations and false accusations.

    Revolutionary ideologies are never able to express themselves in ordinary language. Being based upon a partial and distorted view of reality, they necessarily create a jargon all their own. Then they hijack and shanghai the native dominant language as well.

    Once they succeed in imposing their will upon a subject population, they have won half their battle.

    Who is it exactly who decided that loyalty to one’s people, known since time immemorial as patriotism and considered as one of the most essential virtues, would henceforth become the crime of racism?

    I direct you to Faye’s “Metapolitical Dictionary” for further guidance in this matter. European Americans must fight back against the blows directed against them by the dark artists of grave semantic distortion.

    Here are some terms from Guillaume Faye’s work. Of course his work is flawed, you’ll want to make alterations anywhere you see justifications for violations of the NAP and initiating force rather than conducting an ethical defense. https://guillaumefayearchive.wordpress.com/:

    Aristocracy: those who defend their people before their own interests. An aristocracy has a sense of history and blood lineage, seeing itself as the representative of the people it serves, rather than as members of a caste or club. Not equivalent to an economic elite, it can never become entirely hereditary without becoming sclerotic.

    Biopolitics: a political project oriented to a people’s biological and demographic imperatives. It includes family and population policy, restricts the influx of aliens, and addressed issues of public health and eugenics.

    Devirilisation: declining values of courage and virility for the sake of feminist, xenophile, homophile and humanitarian values.

    Discipline: the regulation and positive adaptation of behavior through sanction, reward and exercise. Egalitarian ideology associates discipline and order with their excesses, i.e., with arbitrary dictatorship. But just the contrary is the case, for freedom and justice are founded on rigorous social discipline. Every society refusing to uphold law and order, i.e., collective discipline, is ripe for tyranny and the loss of public freedoms.

    Germen: a people’s or civilization’s biological root. In Latin, germen means ‘germ’, ‘seed.’ If a culture is lost, recovery is possible. When the biological germen is destroyed, nothing is possible. The germen is comparable to a tree’s roots. If the trunk is damaged or the foliage cut down, the tree can recover—but not if the roots are lost. That’s why the struggle against race-mixing, depopulation and the alien colonization of Europe and European America is even more important than mobilizing for one’s cultural identity and political sovereignty.

    Identity: etymologically, ‘that which makes singular’. A people’s identity is what makes it incomparable and irreplaceable.

    Involution: the regression of a civilization or species to maladaptive forms that lead to the diminishing of its vital forces. Cultural involution has been stimulated by the decline of National Education (40% of adolescents are now partially or completely illiterate), the regression of knowledge, the collapse of social norms, the immersion of youth in a world of audio/visual play and the Africanization of European culture.

    Mental AIDS: the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of its decadence and its enemies. In general, the more the neo-totalitarian system is scandalized by such a simple idea and demonizes it, the more likely it’s true.

    With biological AIDS, T4 lymphocytes, which are supposed to defend the organism, fail to react to the HIV virus as a threat, and instead treat it as a ‘friend’, helping it to reproduce. European and European American societies today are similarly menaced by the collapse of their immunological defenses. As civil violence, delinquency and insecurity explode everywhere, police and judicial measures that might curb them are being undermined. The more Third World colonization damages European peoples, the more measures are taken to continue it. Just as Europe and European America is threatened with demographic collapse, policies which might increase the birth rate are denounced and homosexuality idealized. Catholic prelates argue with great conviction that ‘Islam is an enrichment’, even as it clearly threatens to destroy them.

    Museologicalization: the transformation of a living tradition into a museum piece, which deprives it of an active meaning or significance. A patrimony is constructed every day and can’t, thus, be conserved in a museum. Modern society is paradoxically ultra-conservative and museological, on the one hand, and at the same time hostile to the living traditions of identity.

    Populism: the position which defends the people’s interests before that of the political class—and advocates direct democracy. This presently pejorative term must be made positive. The prevailing aversion to populism expresses a covert contempt for authentic democracy. For the intellectual-media class, ‘people’ means petits blancs—the mass of economically modest, non-privileged French Whites—who form that social category which is expected to pay its taxes and keep quiet. On the subjects of immigration, the death penalty, school discipline, fiscal policies—on numerous other subjects—it’s well known that the people’s deepest wishes as revealed in referenda and elsewhere never, despite incessant media propaganda, correspond to those of the government. Anti-populism marks the final triumph of the isolated, pseudo-humanist, and privileged political-media class—which have confiscated the democratic tradition for their own profit.

    Resistance and Reconquest: faced with their colonization by peoples from the south and by Islam, Europeans, objectively speaking, are in a situation of resistance. Like Christian Spain between the Eighth and Fifteenth centuries, their project is one of reconquest. Resistance today is called ‘racism or ‘xenophobia’, just as native resisters to colonial oppression were formerly called ‘terrorists.’ A semantic reversal is in order here: those who favor the immigrant replacement population ought, henceforward, to be called ‘collaborators.’

    Many of our false sages claim that it’s already too late, that the aliens will never leave, that the best that can be expected is a more reasonable form of ethnic cohabitation. They do so on the basis not of reasoned analysis, but simply from their lack of ethnic consciousness.

    Revolution: a violent reversal of the political situation, following the advent of a crisis and the intervention of an active minority.

    For Europeans, revolution represents a radical abolition, a reversal, of the present system and the construction of a new political reality based on the following principles: 1) an ethnocentric Eurosiberia, free of Islam and the Third World’s colonizing masses; 2) continental autarky, breaking with globalism’s free-trade doctrines; 3) a definitive break with the present organization of the European Union; and 4) a general recourse to an inegalitarian society that is disciplined, authentically democratic, aristocratic and inspired by Greek humanism. European Americans and Euronationalists need to reclaim the idea of revolution from the poseurs of the left.

    Why should European Americans fight? We fight for Europe and European America. We fight for a New World and Old World Europe infused with ideas of identity and continuity, of independence and power—this Europe that is an ensemble of ethnically related peoples.

    We fight for a vision of the world that is both traditional and Faustian, for passionate creativity and critical reason, for an unshakable loyalty and an adventurous curiosity, for social justice and free inquiry. We fight nor just for the Europeans of today, but for the heritage of our ancestors and the future of our descendents.

    Nothing is lost. It’s completely inappropriate for European Americans to see ourselves in the nostalgia of despair, as a rearguard, a last outpost, that struggles with panache for a lost cause. World events give us cause to believe that the situation is heading toward a great crisis—toward a chaos from which history will be reborn.

    Two years after Why We Fight (2001), Faye published his analysis of the coming crisis under the title The Convergence of Catastrophes.

    • I am pretty convinced the situation must run its course. Meaning, it is hopeless; that we are tilting against windmills. But, though we will probably not live to see a different world, that world is nonetheless worth working toward. We owe it to posterity, as posterity once bequeathed a better world to us.

      We are a remnant. But we must not go quietly into that goodnight. If only for hate’s sake. To serve as a pebble in Clover’s shoe.

      Der Tag will Kommt…. someday.

      • Ever read, “The moon is a harsh mistress?” It would make a great start, if we could swindle someone to get us up there. (Gravity WOULD be an issue, need to probably wear weight-suits to ensure we’d still be humanoid in the low-G environment.)

        But make a mass accelerator and perform lunar and asteroid mining, send the “raw materials” back to Earth… Just has to hit the right places, like 1600 PA Ave, Cheyenne mountain, etc. Too costly to engage, they’d need to disintegrate the moon (repurposed ICBMs), and face havoc on Earth, or leave us the F alone. While they Cloverize down there, we grow across the cosmos, especially searching a new Earth-like home, using colony ships or such…

        I know it’s a pipe dream, but it’s better than the nightmare my home is becoming.
        Has anyone else noticed there’s no more talk of orbital elevators, space planes, etc?

      • If we’re going to win this thing, I think we have to learn not to care about anything. We can care in general about a lot of things, but if something we consider worth fighting for that can’t be defended, just let it go. Caring makes you vulnerable.

        The solution is not to care.

        When Hitler lost the race to those African runners, he should have cancelled the olympics right then. And then had all the stadiums demolished and ceased all sports activities that other nations might include Africans in.

        Would have been far cheaper for him, than the alternative of fighting the whole world to prove his theories.

        I don’t need free speech as they define it. Let’s go into lockdown mode at the drop of a hat, not go to work for the tiniest little excuse. If they have check points. Just pull your car over to the side of the road and abandon the thing. Let them have all the cars they pull over rather than have to have an encounter with an official armed stranger.

        The state wants my children. Here, take the ungrateful fuckers, I don’t need title to them. Good luck with those eye-rolling soul crushing she-demons.

        We can beat obamacare. Every guy should just divorce his wife and and cut his hours to stop making enough money to incur penalties. Tell your boss you need your hours cut to get under the threshold. Then start working on the side in the black market with your excess time.

        Let’s say for instance, we can’t stop THEM from knocking over our tall buildings nine-eleven style without giving up our freedom. Just for arguments sake.

        Well so what, just capitulate. Let’s all agree to demo all the tall buildings ourselves right now and then get on with our lives. In the grand scheme of things, who cares how tall our buildings are.

        It wouldn’t take many of us to kill the internet. Good bye cat pictures. Free porn. Free videos. Just a few of us can dedicate our lives to ruining everyone’s social media experience. Oh is that a picture of your baby. Fuck you and your stupid baby. I can’t post crap all day.

        Clover ain’t shit. I can clover up 10,000 times the sites he does with less time. And I can train others too. We can demolish that whole cyber oasis in a hot minute. Let’s destroy wikipedia. Then we can all get jobs writing articles for Encyclopedia Britannica.

        Hell, even burn all the libraries and bookstores Muslim style. There’s not that many. All we really need is a good bible or koran anyway. Who really needs blasphemy anyway? Shit burn them too and the churches and mosques. Fucking chanting savages. Let’s get this party started.

        The Tag Kommt’s today, if we say it does. Let’s roll.

  19. for those who don’t speak cloverian, here’s the gist of everything clover’s been saying all these years.

    Jeremy Clarkson’s Ford GT problems

    Jeremy Clarkson chanting racist nursery rhyme

    Jeremy Clarkson Racialist Remix

    Jeremy Clarkson Beatbox – ‘Were the hell is that bass coming from’

  20. Clover – No one here – NO ONE – is advocating driving under the conditions you describe. And yes, I, along with many others here, would go along with charging damages to those who did, and impeded/endangered others.
    What we are objecting to is the PREEMPTIVE closing of the highways and mass transit systems based on the predictions of often inaccurate weather forecasts. Issue warnings, fine. No shutdowns until required by actual conditions.
    BTW, I have a difficult time believing you are actually as stupid as you seem. Perhaps part of your duty as a troll is to ACT like an idiot.

  21. Poor clover, unaware that no matter where you live, there’s always the local crony towing company you can call that can come tow cars away. Any business or hero can make the call. Even a mundane if he’s “important” enough.

    A for-profit towing company vulture will quickly descend and haul away the offending “illegally parked” vehicle and hold it for a king’s ransom.

    Are you really as ignorant as you appear, or are you a master of deception making a pretense of stupidity?

  22. The idea of leadership by experts isn’t necessarily bad. Or perhaps I lack the wisdom to know why it IS always bad in all cases. It sounds plausible to me.

    But the actual iron-fisted. Take everyone prisoner nature of what American Rule By Experts has actually been. That has been undeniably bad.

    There are people here on this blogs who are my betters. Who have wisdom to avoid problems altogether. Where as I have a kind of 4WD cleverness that powers me thru thick and thin no matter how far from the traveled roads I travel.

    I welcome the leadership. Hell I need some kind of leadership from somewhere. So long as I can take or leave things, I will consider guidance and chastisements on their merits in my due course, when the time arrives according to my own internal clock.

    But I will NOT agree that arriving at some kind of consensus. And then all of us picking up rocks and torches and bashing and setting on fire anyone who deviates too far from this consensus. No matter how reasonable and beneficial said consensus might be.

    I WON’T be a part of that any more. I don’t hope to go back to reasonable consensus and prudent group decision making. For me, the way forward is to somewhere new where it doesn’t matter what is consider right, good, sane, and beneficial by most people.

    A newborn baby is born good and perfect. All that’s needed is NOT to fuck it up with all the dumb shit we’ve had our heads filled with it. It will gain skills and learn the ropes on its own, if you just protect it and leave it be to develop according to what’s already inside of it. And from what it will be able to bring to itself, using its own means.
    – – – –

    It’s nice to be somewhere where you type something like that. Even though it has nothing to do with the Lock Down Nation article. Or much in common with the site theme Automobiles, Motorcycles, and Libertarian Politics as generally understood.

    But in my mind, I am auto-mobile. I am a collection of motors and cycles. I often resort to politics, when the actual accomplishment of my goals seems too arduous and too lengthy to carry out on my own without some kind of assistance and guidance from those who might also be on a lone path with no map, insufficient fuel, and who often tire and need to pull of the road somewhere safe and rest awhile before resuming the long road to nowhere tomorrow.
    – – –

    “The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other’s life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.”

    ― Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah

  23. The childishness of the clover is fascinating.

    A new fear has been manufactured from whole cloth regarding named winter storms and downloaded directly into clover’s usb hive mind port.

    The passive and compliant clover now acts as though he has always cowered and duck and covered at the altar of safety during winter storms, and hurricanes.

    “30 inches of snow and 50 mph winds means you could not see your hand in front of your face.”

    “It is the governments business for not wanting you driving or walking in the worst conditions believable. 50 mph winds with a couple of inches of snow is a blizzard. 50 mph winds with 30 inches of snow is death for many that decided to brave it.”

    To a clover, going outside when there is a hurricane or winter storm warning in effect on the TV is INSTANT DEATH, thanks to statist hypnotic suggestion.

    Clover is the end product of a lifetime of watching teevee and relying on others to do his thinking, planning, and decision making for him.

    He is happy to turn on the infotainment indoctrination machine and painlessly forget all those prior years when there was no such thing as killer winter storm season. It’s storm season, you stupid idiots, didn’t you watch and listen?

    Hypnotize Yourself to be Stuck to Your Chair – Kendall Amy

  24. Clearly, Eric, you’re suffering from that newly diagnosed psychological disorder Hyper Anti-Authoritarianism. There’ll be a nice, comfy room in Gitmo for you and others with this problem that Big Bro–uh, the federal government will set aside for your treatment.

      • Well, the problem with non-clovers is, they still have their balls… They havent’ been chemically or physically castrated, nor emotionally cauterized…

        The problem is, I meet many women who have bigger balls than most men, these days…
        too bad their Chesticles don’t match the apparrent size.

        Hey, can’t blame a guy for looking! 😀

        • Story from the days of the Clinton Administration, when Hitlery was “First Lady” – possibly apocryphal.
          Ms. Clinton was getting dressed for a public appearance. One of her assistants says she may want to reconsider the skirt, in favor of one not quite to short. H says, “What’s wrong with it? I still have the legs for it.”
          Reply – “The issue is not your legs. This skirt is so short your balls are showing.”

  25. If only people really didn’t want government. Any of it.

    My name is permanently affixed to me. This is a function of government.

    So called personal info is violently attached to me. I am of a certain age. Was born in a certain locale. Am a certain height. Weight. Sex. Religion. Nationality. I have a residence history. A job history.

    Because this is forced on me, it is all irrational, and therefore useless to me. At root, all of these details require a softly walking man in authority, stalking me 24/7 and carrying a big stick. I reject all of it.

    Perhaps some kind of hearth concept could be resurrected. A torch is lit and kept burning wherever your property is assembled. Violating the collection of stuff next to this flame is equivalent to violating the lighter of the torch himself. This is a taboo that is violently enforced by one and all.

    There’s things to work out, but it’s quite easy to abandon it all. You just have to take the leap and gamble on freedom. We could all agree today, that starting the next time the sun is directly overhead Greenwich, UK, i.e. tomorrow, that every government promulgated fact abpit everything be expunged and discontinued.

    The true concept of ZeroGov is quite simple really. And incredibly revolutionary and freeing at the same time.

    Suddenly, if you’re at work, you better send someone out for supplies, because if you lock the place up and all leave at the end of the night. Someone else might have broken in and taken over.

    I am confidence a ZeroGov world would be incomprehensibly better than what now exists. You just have to release your inner Clover, and use all your faculties to deal with its widespread implications.

    If something is truly yours, then you’ll need to defend it. All the time. Certainly new ways of protecting things can be agreed to with other willing participants. But you’ll have to make the effort and execute.

    Under ZeroGov, the ruling brand of NAP would be as follows. No violent predatory behavior is to not be tolerated. Any man you see using violence against another man’s PERSON is clearly in violation. Kill him, wound and incapacitate him. Take his stuff, even so far as to strip him naked and get him to confess where his other property is and take that too.

    Violating property would be a whole nother matter. But quite doable I think.

    Hunting carnivore humans can’t be allowed. Grazing free range humans can be allowed.

    Deer will eat eggs from the nests of birds, and even wounded birds who aren’t able to get away from them. This isn’t a violation of NAP for a deer, nor should it be for a man.

    So if you come across a briefcase laying in the street. You look around and see no one is there. You call out and make plain, I am taking this property which is lying here unsecured. That is similar to the way a deer grazing might sometime be a pseudo predator. Not a violation of NAP because the previous custodian/owner of the briefcase has left it unsecured and has thus abandoned equitable title.

    Maybe this kind of thing seems unfair or distasteful, but it really shouldn’t. There is probably a way of affixing a plate of ownership on everything you own, and otherwise making such takings inconvenient.

    But under a ZeroGov regime. There are no forced protocols or allegiances to any one. House rules are obviously house rules, because there is someone present in the house who makes it known and enforces consequences immediately on whomever violates the house rules.

  26. Many traditional conservatives identify themselves as “anarchists” on account of their opposition to state control, yet they support the ordering by rank of social groups such as families, churches, corporations, clubs, and even countries.

    J. R. R. Tolkien, for instance, once wrote that his political views “lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy.”

    For this reason, Brian Patrick Mitchell proposes that such conservatives be called akratists instead of anarchists because they accept the “archy” of social rank and only oppose the “kratos” of state control, in contrast to individualist anarchists, who reject both social “archy” and political “kratos.”

    -B P Mitchell is of no use to me, he’s a religious irrationalist

    B P Mitchell rooted his distinction of archy and kratos in the West’s historical experience of church and state, crediting the collapse of the Christian consensus on church and state with the appearance of four main divergent traditions in Western political thought:

    republican constitutionalism : pro archy, anti kratos
    libertarian individualism : anti archy, anti kratos
    democratic progressivism : anti archy, pro kratos
    plutocratic nationalism : pro archy, pro kratos

    -It’s still all non-sequitirs for me.

    B P Mitchell began a personal blog on “church, state, language, and life”. He is an Orthodox Christian and was a deacon of the Orthodox Church in America, but has been released to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

    He now serves at St. John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Washington,DC. Since then, he has been elevated to the rank of protodeacon. He is also a member of the Academy of Philosophy and Letters.

  27. These city ‘lockdowns’ are the end result of government dependence plus a safety culture.

    If people are going to be ‘kept safe’ ‘for their own good’ and public costs are to be minimized well, this is what happens.

    I’d go for a walk in the snow just to defy authority.

    Although if all the clovers stay home driving in the snow would be fun!

    • I am not an anarchist. I believe in “the consent of the governed” as expressed by TJ in the DoI. If Clover and the rest of the sheeple want the kind of gunvermin we are seeing today, they are welcome to it. But I did/do NOT consent.
      TJ also said that the purpose of gunvermin was to SECURE our unalienable rights. Note, these are not citizens’ rights, because they predate the existence of the gunvermin. They are HUMAN rights. Since they are not created or granted by the gunvermin, they cannot be eliminated by the gunvermin, only violated.
      If I want to be safe, I will keep myself safe, thank you very much. And I will be much more likely to be able to do that if my rights have been secured.

      • Dear PTB,
        Government is an entity which claims that it is legally entitled to exercise a monopoly of force within a certain geographical area. Given this, “consent of the governed” is an impossibility. If one cannot withdraw consent, one cannot give it. Consent, to be meaningful, must be voluntary. You state, “I did/do NOT consent”. With respect, this means you are an anarchist.


        • “With respect, this means you are an anarchist.”
          Only with respect to gunvermin as it is currently constituted. Theoritically, there could exist a non-monopolistic, consent based government. Slim chance, I know, but within the realm of possibility.

          • “Theoretically, there could exist a non-monopolistic, consent based government”.

            There are many institutions that “govern” (family, church, fraternities, charitable organizations, etc…). However, the defining characteristic of “Government” is that it is monopolistic.

            “Non-monopolistic, consent based government”, is anarchy. Again, with respect, you are an anarchist.


            • Jeremy – Although I agree that all current gunvermin claim monopoly rights, I don’t understand why it HAS to be that way. Have you read any of Michael Rozeff’s writings on Panarchy?

              • Guys,

                I like the idea of “house rules” … no aggressive violence is necessary; everything is based on mutually agreeable consent.

                I invite you to be a guest at my house. Before you come over, we agree that you will not take any of my bikes or my classic muscle car out for a drive without asking first – and having obtained my explicit consent. You flout the rules, you won’t be invited back.

                You want to join a club. You agree to pay “x” dues, in return for access to the golf course and gym. You don’t pay – or abide by the rules – and your privileges are revoked.

                Such things as described above are, in a very real sense, government – yet no coercive violence is involved.

                I see no reason why it couldn’t be scaled up.

                • I agree Eric. I can’t count the times my wife and I have told our daughter “Our house, our rules.” When she starts paying the mortgage, then ….
                  But Jeremy is right that all current ‘civil’ gunvermin insist that my house is inside their house.

                • Dear Eric,

                  Yes, voluntary government is beneficial to humanity. This type of government evolves naturally and is an important part of all social structures. However, “Monopoly Government” is morally illegitimate because it is based on nothing but force. All attempts to legitimize “Government” by invoking the “consent of the governed” or the “delegation of authority” is but a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the legitimacy of Government is based entirely on force.


                  • Jeremy – the other problem with ‘delegation of authority’ is that I cannot delegate authority that is not mine to begin with.
                    On the other hand, that cuts both ways. If the gunvermin insists that they have been delegated the authority to own, for example, fully automatic weapons, that that means I must have that authority myself.
                    Or an F-18 or an M1A1 Abrams, (cue Yul Brynner) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

                    • PTB,
                      Exactly! The three legs that supposedly support the legitimacy of government are “democracy”, “consent of the governed” and the “delegation of authority”. All of these are myths.

                      Auberon Herbert asked what I consider to be the fundamental question of political philosophy. Namely, “By what right do men exercise power over each other?” Modern political theorists blithely assume that “democracy” somehow answers this question. It does not.

                      To them I would ask, “do you really believe that two men have the right to rule over one?” Obviously “democracy” is an insufficient answer to the problem of political authority.

                      Asserting that political authority is legitimate because the “people” grant consent is equally absurd. Nobody can give consent because nobody can withdraw consent.

                      “Delegation of authority” is perhaps the most ridiculous justification of political authority. As you point out, one cannot delegate an authority that one does not possess. I do not possess the authority to break into my neighbor’s house, kidnap his son and put him in a cage for the “crime” of smoking dope. Most people would agree. Unfortunately, most people believe that the “Government” does possess such a right.


                  • Likewise, since I do not have the authority to rob my neighbor, even to give the money to the homeless, neither can I delegate the gunvermin to do that on my behalf.
                    Same applies to stopping me at a checkpoint, Clover!

                • I don’t know why people want government. Government has never treated me as well, on average, as even the biggest, meanest, most crony, most insider, corporations have.

                  Ultimately, even the worst corporations, I have some power over, even if it is denying them what is to them a tiny, insignificant amount of business.

              • Dear PTB,

                First, thanks for introducing me to a new term, ‘akratist.’ So, I did a little research. One author claimed that anarchy was primarily concerned with abolishing hierarchies, but is OK with political power. I consider this to be false.


                Anarchy simply means without ruler (not without rule). So, while the obsession with hierarchies is clearly important to left anarchists, it is not a necessary component of anarchism.

                Yes, I have read much of Michael Rozeff’s writing on panarchy, and other subjects. However, I see his work as an exploration of the possibilities of anarchy, not as an intellectual alternative to it.


    • Safety culture? So what if the snow and weather was as bad as forecast? Then you have thousands of stranded motorists with the idiots that think they can drive through 2 feet of snow with their minivan. The so called governments have had to deal with hundreds of stranded motorists before on interstates. Only an idiot libertarian would say it is a good thing to make others come and rescue your ass. Libertarians are brain dead.Clover

        • CloverEric I can not believe how stupid you are. They were forecasting the largest storm on record and you are complaining about the government trying to keep you off the roads. You are stupid. It is obvious the government that you complain about is far smarter and has more common sense then you have. Yes the government should not have to tell you to keep off the roads but with stupid people like you, I guess they have to.

      • Clover, your government has created lots of stupid people to justify its power to equally stupid control freaks like yourself.

        However the solution is to stop government from creating stupid people with its schools not ‘lockdowns’ when the snow falls.

        I’ve lived through a good number of heavy snow falls. I usually spent the time keeping my car shoveled out or doing other snow clearing tasks. I’ve usually walked to a store when I needed something. You clovers make the roads horrific. But now it’s even illegal to walk to the store because of morons like you. Really, why can’t you just leave people alone?

        • Brent when they were calling for 30 inches of snow and 50 mph winds then to have any unneeded vehicles on the road endangers the hundreds of people needed to rescue your ass. The reason the government has to do a lock down is because of people with a low IQ like you have.Clover
          I also have been through a lot of snow storms. I would not go out in a snow storm that was forecast even with a large 4 wheel drive truck. Brent I own a 4 wheel drive truck. I almost never drive it in the winter and take the insurance off of it. If it is too bad to be out with my car then it is too bad to be out. If you need to go shopping when the wind is blowing 50 mph with 30 inches of snow on the ground then I feel sorry that you do not have a brain.

          • Clover,
            Please look up the definition of the word -walk-.
            If you’re too scared to walk outside in imaginary conditions that’s your problem. Furthest I’ve gone to get something in snow, walking, is a mile. Usually just three blocks. No big deal. Not everyone is afraid of everything.

            But we now know you drive (on occasion, that “almost never”) without insurance.

            • Brent it is but a phone call to reinstate such insurance. I would not have figured that you would understand that with your low IQ.Clover

              • What insurance company allows such nonsense? Activate insurance for a day then turn it back off?

                Furthermore what state does? Under mandatory insurance laws any time the government finds you don’t have insurance they’ll suspend/revoke the registration. In some states the insurance company is supposed to tell the government the insurance has been turned off.

                What if a family member drives the vehicle and doesn’t know the insurance has been turned off? What if, Clover? What if! that’s why you’re ilk made the laws this way.

    • “I’d go for a walk in the snow just to defy authority.”

      Had the young girl do that 2 years ago in the blizzard. She asked to go for a walk, I didn’t think twice – we’re in an enclosed development, no where she could go.

      She decided to walk to the high school a m,ile or so away. In whiteout conditions at night.

      got to be careful – I understand what you mean, but there is ALSO a “special kind of stupid,” and we don’t want to BE that, or EMPOWER that – by doing something stupid, and especially by not coming back after doing something stupid. 😉
      After all, by accident is one thing.
      By intent…? 😛 That not work so good…. 😉

  28. I read that, despite Hizonner DiBlasio’s order, the NYC subway system continued to run – because it does so automatically. But it would not STOP to let potential passengers on or off.

    • They even said it CANNOT be shut down. I guess just programmed as to when and where to stop. Shades of ‘Poor Ol’ Charlie’! Somebody throw him a sandwich, please.

  29. Like the Boston marathon lockdown the snow lockdown in New England was a test of how resistant to authority the sheeple are at this point.

    Personally, I would have went out and about with the snowmobile just BECAUSE the State said No.

  30. Police stop teens seeking snow shoveling work
    Sergio Bichao, Courier News

    BOUND BROOK, N.J. — School was closed for the blizzard that wasn’t, but there was still enough snow on the ground that two high school seniors thought they could make a few extra bucks.

    In the process, Matt Molinari and Eric Schnepf, both 18, also learned a valuable lesson about one of the costs of doing business: government regulations.

    The two friends were canvasing a neighborhood near this borough’s border with Bridgewater early Monday evening, handing out fliers promoting their service, when they were pulled over by police and told to stop.

    The story was shared on a popular Bound Brook Facebook group by a resident who saw Schnepf being questioned by police after coming to his door.

    “Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about his generation being lazy and not working for their money,” he wrote on Bound Brook NJ Events’ page. “Here’s a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they’re told to stop?”

    Members of the group responded with support for the young entrepreneurs.

    Bound Brook, like many municipalities in the state and country, has a law against unlicensed solicitors and peddlers.

    Despite the rule, however, Police Chief Michael Jannone said the two young businessmen were not arrested or issued a ticket, and that the police’s concern was about them being outside during dangerous conditions, not that they were unlicensed.

    “We don’t make the laws but we have to uphold them,” he said Tuesday after reading some of the online comments about the incident. “This was a state of emergency. Nobody was supposed to be out on the road.”

    The teens took the incident in stride and said that police told them that they only needed permission to go door to door, but were still allowed to shovel walkways if residents called them.

    “The cops were nice about it. They weren’t jerks. They were trying to make sure everything is OK,” Molinari said Tuesday.

    In this borough, anyone selling goods and services door to door must apply for a license that can cost as much as $450 for permission that is valid for only 180 days. Nonprofits are exempt from the fee but must still apply for a permit.

    Similar bans around the country have put the kibosh on other capitalist rites of passage, such as lemonade stands and selling Girl Scouts cookies.

    Such laws have been challenged elsewhere on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment right to free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, for example, is suing New Brunswick over a similar law that prohibits panhandling and begging.

    The Bound Brook ordinance does not apply to people going door to door for political reasons or to volunteer firefighters or real estate and insurance salesmen licensed by the state.

    “We don’t make the laws but we have to uphold them.”
    Bound Brook Police Chief Michael Jannone
    Jannone said an officer was dispatched to the street because a resident called to report a “suspicious person” with curly blond hair and a hoodie who was walking through yards.

    A responding officer told the young men that it wasn’t safe to be out and to come back during the day.

    Jannone said his department has no interest in cracking down on kids who want to shovel sidewalks or driveways. The law was made for transient scam artists who prey on the vulnerable, he said.

    “The spirit of the ordinance is to protect residents from gypsy activity. People will solicit door to door and target the elderly and get into their house,” he said.

    Janonne said the fliers that the two young men were handing out had their first names and cellphone numbers.

    “People doing something illegal probably won’t extend this much identifying information,” he said.

    The pair managed to get five jobs by early Tuesday afternoon, earning between $25 to $40 a house.

    “We don’t really bargain,” Schnepf said. “We help some people out and get whatever they’re willing to pay.”

    • People were once expected to “deal.” With snow and other things, too. Everything’s been upended. It seems as though every idiocy must not only be catered to, it must be imposed forcibly.

      For “safety.”

      • So Eric if you got a big snow storm in your area and hundreds of idiots were out and got stuck blocking the roadways and your house caught on fire. What would happen? No fire truck could get through so your house burns down. If people are not smart enough to stay off the roads in one of the largest snowstorms in history in the forecast then it is them that are brain dead and endanger others. Only people like you think it is a good thing to have cars block the snowplows and rescue vehicles and make others get your cars towed off the roads so that the snow can be cleared. I would say that libertarians have about a 10 IQ.Clover

        • Really Clover? Are you that shallow, obtuse and stupid? If what you state is true, please explain how we manged to deal with snowstorms and blizzards 30 years ago without this authoritarian crap? There were no more people stranded then as there are today. You are an utter fool.

          • Bill in IL, was that a joke? It seems to me that the mayor of your major city lost their job because they were not able to handle the blizzard. So if there is a 30 inch snow storm in IL and 50 mph winds what do you think we should do to people who decide they want to go out and drive and get stuck which almost all would unless they were following a plow, and end up blocking emergency vehicles and plows? From what I heard Libertarians are free to do whatever they feel like without hurting others. When there is a 95 percent chance you will negatively affect others by driving when you should not be then what do we do with you? Hang your ass or just take all of your property?Clover

            • Lots of snow today here in the chicago area Clover. People are getting around. I walked to the grocery store and got some bananas and some apples and a cinnamon roll and few other things and walked home. No big deal.

              • Yes Brent a few inches of snow are not the same as 30 inches with a 50 mph wind. An idiot like you with a 10 IQ would not know the difference though. Do all stupid people become libertarians?Clover

                • Let’s see officially 19.5″ at ORD. I know I cleared at least 20″ there’s about 2.5 FEET on top of an outdoor garbage can further north where I work…. this is real snow Clover. No ‘lockdowns’ everyone expected to be at work monday morning. Not your imaginary snow and hand ringing and fear and edicts to stay locked indoors. It snowed and it was dealt with. People went about their business. Went to work the next morning.

                  • Brent if I was as stupid as you are I would take a shotgun to my head. 30 inches of snow and 50 mph winds means you could not see your hand in front of your face. Are all libertarians as stupid as you?Clover

                    • Clover:

                      “So if there is a 30 inch snow storm in IL and 50 mph winds what do you think we should do to people.. blah blah..”


                      “Yes Brent a few inches of snow are not the same as 30 inches with a 50 mph wind.. blah..”

                      You seem fixated on 2 numbers that you made up – my bold, YOUR word: “IF”.

                      You invented yet another scenario to harass people and foist blame on them via your own imaginary incident.

                      Life for you must be near impossible, were you not paid to troll here.

                      Keep it up Clover, we know who you are. If you’re trying to turn people against liberty and freedom to follow your Statist arse-lickery, you and your bosses are sick, misguided fools, especially with those imaginary arguments of yours.

                    • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N are you also one of those stupid libertarians? Yes that was what they were forecasting when the so called lock down was put into place. 30 inches of snow and 50 mph winds. If you do not match one with the other then you would be a stupid libertarian. If you think it is good and safe to be walking or driving in such conditions then you need mental help.Clover

                    • What’s next, Clover?

                      Lockdowns when a lot rain is coming? Maybe when it gets dark?

                      Why don’t you move into a prison – where lockdowns are an accepted part of everyday life – and leave the rest of us alone?

                    • clover is like a dog with a bone, it just won’t let it go. Government can recommend and explain why it might be prudent to stay off of the roads, but decreeing, prior to anything happening that you are forbidden, under penalty of violence against your person or property, is what I find unacceptable. Obviously you like to,be told what to do by uncle. Saves you from having to exercise free will and simple risk evaluation in the course of your life. It also frees you of pesky responsibility for your actions, something I don’t mind accepting, but obviously you do, and further, you don’t want anyone doing that, thus your slavish cheerleading of government oppression. That .gov vehicles,are allowed to roam freely, well, actions speak very loudly, don’t they?

                • Hey Clover,

                  I’m very concerned that you might drive your uninsured truck, perhaps to save a few bucks by only insuring it for some of the year (as you claim you do).

                  For safety, shouldn’t you be required to maintain insurance all year long? Why should you be trusted not to drive your truck unless the insurance is renewed or activated… but I can’t be trusted to drive my insured car without being subjected to random “checks” – because I might be “drunk”? And without the slightest reason to even suspect I may be? You, meanwhile, have admitted you don’t always keep your truck insured. This is like me admitting I’ve been drinking… but hey, trust me, I won’t go out and drive. No need to “check” to be sure I’m not as good as my word.

                  Please, Clover, explain.

                  You’ll respond with non sequiturs, evasions – your usual.

                  I believe it’s an unconscious reflex; you’re literally an animal. A walking on two legs dog – without the dog’s fundamentally decent qualities.

                  You urge to control does not apply universally. It only applies to the actions (or non-actions) of those others who disagree with your notions of “risk” and “safety.”

                  It is amazing you can breathe and type simultaneously.

                  • Yes Eric I do believe you are as stupid as Brent. I would not drive my truck uninsured in poor driving conditions risking hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yes an idiot like you would. It takes less than 5 minutes to reinstate insurance on a vehicle with suspended insurance. You can usually suspend insurance for up 6 months without it being dropped totally. Yes libertarians are stupid.Clover

                    • But Clover… you might drive without insurance! It’s much too risky to allow. You should be required – forced – to keep any vehicle in your possession fully insured at all times.

                      For safety.

                      Because I don’t feel comfortable trusting you to not drive without insurance on the down low.

                      If you had an operating brain – and some capacity for empathy – the above might cause you to… reflect and think. And perhaps alter your positions on some issues, including subjecting people to random, probable cause-free “checkpoints” to make sure they’re not “drunk.”

                      But – alas – you don’t have an operating brain. Much less a human soul.

                    • Clover has a brain Eric – one of jello. Fits any mould or circumstance, but only in direct opposition to common sense and decency.

                      No matter what one says, Clover will espouse the opposite, even to his/her own detriment through sheer hypocrisy.

                      A useful idiot in every sense of the word.

                    • Well Eric, I believe Clover paid you an unintentional compliment, comparing your intelligence with that of BrentP. I would not mind being in that neighborhood either.
                      Of course, how much is his opinion on such matters worth?

                    • Hi Phillip,

                      It is almost a mathematical axiom that people who resort to calling others “stupid idiots” (as opposed to the intelligent idiots) fall to the left of the Bell Curve distribution.

                      As Clover often says, “I would bet a millions dollars” that his IQ is around 95 and very likely much lower. In Brave New World terms, he’s a Gamma Machine Minder. A notch up from an Epsilon Semi Moron … perhaps.

                    • But you probably broke the law by not having insurance on the truck. If a vehicle is registered the law usually requires insurance because someone _might_ drive it without insurance.

                      State governments do random ‘audits’ and send out letters where you have to show proof of insurance for a time period. It would be fitting for you to get audited while you’re truck is without insurance. But you would probably just have your insurance agent lie for you in some way to get out of it.

      • Clover – pay attention! I know it’s hard with your limited intellect, but please try.
        NO ONE is saying it’s a good idea to be out driving in dangerous conditions. We are saying that it is NOT the gunvermin’s business to forbid us from using our own judgment regarding the local conditions, our vehicle, our ability, and the urgency of the situation.
        BTW, I will be willing to put my IQ score up against yours any day. But more importantly, there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

        • Philip that is where we disagree. It is the governments business for not wanting you driving or walking in the worst conditions believable. 50 mph winds with a couple of inches of snow is a blizzard. 50 mph winds with 30 inches of snow is death for many that decided to brave it. It blocks the roads to snow plows, emergency vehicles and risks the life if those that are called to rescue your ass. Libertarians are about doing anything that does not hurt others. Blocking the roads with stuck vehicles is hurting others. Stranded people on such roads requires hundreds of people to try to go out and help the idiots. I would think that libertarians would be all against the idiots that decide for themselves to hurt others.Clover

          • Clover,

            “The government” has no business. Because there is no such thing. There are only people. Some of these people – people like you – believe they are entitled to pre-empt and second-guess and order about other people. I went for a 5 mile run in 19 degree cold yesterday, Clover. With snow coming in sheets, sideways, driven by 30 MPH gusts. I am perfectly capable of dealing with snow – on foot and on the road.

            Don’t project your inadequacies on me – or others.

            • CloverAgain Eric 30 mph gusts is nothing compared to a 50 mph wind with heavy snow. Eric I could care less if you kill yourself but you have no right to block roads and delay me and others while hundreds of of your libertarian idiot friends have their cars towed to allow plows and me to get down the road. Eric it is no different than parking bans in the winter so that plows can get through. I am sure you are against that also.

              • Clover,

                You apparently haven’t looked into it. Because if you had, you’d discover that it’s people such as yourself who create the problems – not Libertarians like me, who are competent and can deal with life.

                Example: People like me who have concealed weapons permits are (by the numbers) far less likely to use a gun criminally or recklessly than someone like you. Or even a cop.

                Just so, I know how to drive. That is to say, I know how to do more than turn an ignition key and put an automatic transmission into “Drive.”

                Which is all you know how to do.

                • Hey idiot Eric. Hey that should be your new name. You say that I have an automatic? Damn you are stupid. The vehicle I drive more than 90 percent of the time is a manual transmission. Funny an idiot like you would bring up that statement. 75 years ago and that was all they made right? Does that make them all superior drivers than you?
                  Another person with a zero IQ would make the statement about how a guy carrying a gun daily never uses it when he shouldn’t. Eric I understand your numbers. If less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun daily then yes you may be right that the other 9,999 people are more likely to use a gun when they shouldn’t. That is kind of like saying how good a driver is because he never gets in an accident and only drives 10 miles a year.
                  Eric if I was as stupid as you then I would kill myself. Clover

                  Then you say you are a far better driver than I am? Tell me how that is because I have a lot of experience, no accidents and great coordination and reflexes because I compete in sports at a high level. What about you? Did that book you read today make you a better driver? Eric have you ever been flying down the road at more than 50 mph with your feet an inch and a half off the ground holding you up? I do that often skiing. I pull more Gs skiing than you ever have in a car. Eric you are truly an idiot.

                  • Clover,

                    First, an observation (one I’ve made many times already):

                    You do not argue – you hurl abuse. I am an “idiot” and “stupid” and have a “zero IQ.” Are you aware how such comments are perceived by people who are not stupid? They indicate you have no argument to make. No facts to present. That you’re simply enraged and frustrated and all you can do is call names.

                    Next, you make assertions about things you don’t have the first clue about, which (again) only makes you look foolish. How much track time have you got, Clover? And how much track time have I got? Have you ever entered a hairpin corner after hauling down from 150 MPH? How many Gs do you suppose that and similar register?

                    And what has any of it got to do with whether a person ought to be pre-punished for what you feel he might do?

                    I’ve tried to get you answer this simple straightforward query and your response is a barrage of 5th grade-level insults and non sequiturs.

                    This seems to be the case generally with people such as yourself. You coil into a rictus of rage when confronted with a Libertarian argument but offer no argument in response. Just an outpouring of abuse.

                    • CloverEric you say you are a better driver than me because you have track time at 150 mph? Tell me Eric why that makes you a better driver? I am sure there were no hills or trees or other weaving in and out cars with your track experience. Tell me Eric if you are so good on the track why you never compete? Driving 150 mph on a track is nothing like day to day driving. Eric a good driver does not push the limits and knows how to drive around other cars and pedestrians and for that matter farm vehicles. Tell me the last time you came upon a tractor going 15 mph on the track?

                    • Clover,

                      Again: You want to argue about other things. To sidestep. To distract. My skill/experience as a driver vs. yours.

                      You refuse to answer the question: When do your fears about what might happen take a back seat to what actually has happened (and not happened)?

                      The inarguable fact is I haven’t caused damage to anyone else’s person or property driving as I do – over a very long period of time (more than 30 years) in every type of car imaginable, all over the country.

                      Either I am incredibly lucky – or I am driving within my limits, which may be higher than your limits.

                      That’s the issue, Clover. One size does not fit all. You may well be a better skier than I. You appear to have more experience, at any rate. I would not insist that you ski at my level.

                      Why do you insist I drive at yours?

                    • PS: In re your comment:

                      “I am sure there were no hills or trees or other weaving in and out cars with your track experience.”

                      Many tracks have blind corners and hills you have to take on faith (in your skill and the car’s grip threshold) at very high speed; unless you’ve rented the track for your own personal enjoyment, you will be in traffic – other cars (or bikes, if it’s a bike event) jockeying for position – again, at very high speed.

                      If you learn to do this reasonably well – not at the level of a professional race driver, but competently; such that you can be on the same track with drivers who are at that (professional) level – you have acquired a skill set, a sense of what a car is capable of (and what you, as a driver, are capable of) that puts you several notches above someone such as yourself, who has never explored the limits of adhesion and control on a race track and who has not developed his skill to a much higher than average level.

                      You – like most people – have no idea what a car is capable of; never developed your own skills beyond the most pedestrian level. This is why you feel the way I drive is “risky” and “dangerous.” But your feelings are not facts.

                      Again, Clover, consider skiing. You’ve told us you are a highly skilled skier, someone with much more than average experience and training and so able to ski at a much faster pace than average skiers without – wait for it – being a dangerous skier. If you haven’t been lying about your experience and skill level, I will agree.

                      And I am certain you’d resent being forced to ski at the pace of an average skier. Knowing you’re competent to ski at a faster pace, by dint of your higher skill and greater experience.

                      The thing is, Clover, you’re unable to divine the principle’s the same with regard to driving – and so many other things. This is what makes dealing with a person like you so aggravating. Your inability to grok – and apply – a general principle to particulars.

                      With you, everything is to be done according to whatever subjective, arbitrary decision you feel is the right one in that situation. You feel it’s ok for you to ski at your pace, so that’s ok – no one should try to force you to ski at a slower pace. You feel you don’t need special insurance to cover potential “costs to society” because you feel your risk threshold to be low … but you feel very differently when it comes to (among other things) whether other people should be compelled to “slow down” (to the pace you feel is appropriate) and made to purchase insurance because you feel the risk is too high to go without… and so on.

                    • Again Eric that is why I truly believe Libertarians are idiots. You believe that everyone is a good and safe driver if they have not totaled a car lately. Eric I am sure there have been 10s of thousands of drivers who never had an accident before they drove drunk or in your words pushed your limits and killed people. Clover
                      Just like one of Dom’s videos where he said he was such a good driver that he could drive fast on a snow packed road. There were trees within feet of the road. I call a driver like that poor but if you want to call them lucky then go right ahead. I would rather have a good driver on the road with me than a lucky one until his luck runs out. Just like the driver that flew past me on the interstate last year and I called him an idiot seconds before he flew off the interstate with snow flying 20 feet in the air. I do not call drivers like that lucky. I call myself lucky for him not losing control when he was passing me. Eric I would guess that he had not flown off the road like that before so you would have called him a superior driver.

                    • Did I claim that “believe that everyone is a good and safe driver if they have not totaled a car lately”?

                      No, I did not. Again, you resort to fabrications – because you can’t argue the point.

                      I stated that my track record of three decades without having caused any damage to another person or their property indicates my driving is reasonable and safe.

                    • Eric I do not know how you drive on a daily basis but I call you a stupid driver when your article about not having a clue why one road had no passing zones. That you have to admit was just stupid. There were many cross roads and driveways where you could not see entering vehicles until they were on the road and you did not have a clue why there were no passing zones. I would think the worst driver around would understand that.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      The road you mention – I drive it every day. It’s a lightly traveled rural highway. There are only a few driveways along that stretch and cars rarely come in or out and I can see in plenty of time if they are. I know the road/the area… do you?

                      No, you do not.

                      Yet you presume to lecture me about how I ought to drive on a road I know intimately; one you’ve never been within 100 miles of.

                      No-passing zones are another example of your one size fits all mentality. Perhaps you feel uncomfortable passing; perhaps you’re not sufficiently capable (or your car’s not sufficiently quick). But if I am comfortable and capable and can do so without incident then why should it be illegal for me to do so?

                      Ever drive in Germany or Italy? Over there, it’s generally “pass at your own discretion.” This business of double-yellowing every road (including, increasingly, formerly legal passing zones) is pure Cloverism. Of a piece with defining “drunk” driving as having “x” arbitrary BAC level (with Clovers agitating for ever lower thresholds, even “zero tolerance” of any alcohol whatsoever in a person’s system) irrespective of their actual driving.

                      Stop generalizing; stop dumbing down. Stop pre-punishing people for what they might do.

                      Deal with people as individuals; assume competence and responsibility until incompetence and irresponsibility are demonstrated (by causing harm) and then hold them – and only them – responsible.

                      Did my ski analogy make any impression on you at all?

                    • You are right Eric I have not been withing 100 miles of the road you are talking about with no passing zones. That is why I checked it out with Google maps and the videos and satellite images. They showed me exactly why there was no passing zones. Trees and brush were blocking entering vehicles until they were on the road. You say that other countries you pass at your own risk. Eric that is where you and I disagree and you even fail the Libertarian ideals in that you are risking the lives and property of others. Eric I could care less if you run into a tree at 100 mph but when you endanger others is when I believe you should be stopped. Tell me why libertarians have the right to decide and increase the amount of danger and risk others should face?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      That section is straight, and one can easily see whether a car is coming in the opposite lane and whether a car is coming out of a driveway. Which by the way almost never happens because there are only a handful of occupied houses along that stretch.

                      But in any event, note: You are once again claiming superior knowledge of something you obviously do not have superior knowledge of. You’ve never even been here!

                      I live here. I drive that road every day.

                      And yet, your Google Map view – and your feelings – trump my years of actually driving that road every single day.

                      I wish you’d quit trying to force-fit everyone else into your box. Your dictatorial one-size-fits-all regime. If Clover doesn’t like “x” – deems it “unsafe” or “ought to be illegal” (not based on actual harm caused but on Clover’s general feeling that someone might cause harm) then Clover insists it is “unsafe” and even if no one causes any harm, then anyone who does what Clover does not like should be pre-punished based on Clover’s worry that he might cause harm. No matter how many times – over how many decades – that person does what Clover does not like without actually causing harm to anyone.

                      Because, hey, it might happen!

                      Which, of course, could be said of almost any human activity. You might hurt someone with your skiing. You’ll say the risk is low – and I agree.

                      But you disagree when it comes to my driving – irrespective of the inarguable fact that I have decades of driving that way under my belt without having caused any harm to any person or their property.


                    • Eric I am sure that today there was a person that drove for decades without an accident and killed another person. You say that it is fine to have drunks on the road because they only have a number in their system not a guaranteed accident even though with that number in their system they are 1000 times or more likely to cause an accident and death than I am. Tell me why libertarians have the right to give any risk to others that they like? With your statements you must agree that texting while driving is fine, tailgating is fine, weaving through traffic is fine, driving 70 mph on hard snow packed roads is fine. I guess it must be OK according to you to go to a mall and pick up a ball bat and wildly start swinging without looking around for other people that might get hit.Clover
                      Your excuse that you have a right to do something dangerous because it seldom could cause major injury or death is psychotic.
                      The video that google maps gives you shows that it is impossible to see cars entering your roadway until they are a couple of feet from the roadway. Eric you are a liar but anything for a buck, right?

                    • Clover writes:

                      “I am sure that today there was a person that drove for decades without an accident and killed another person.”

                      Indeed. Just as there is a person “today” who went his whole life – so far – without committing a murder or rape. But then raped or killed someone today.

                      Should we therefore presume that everyone is a potential – a likely – rapist/murderer? Because they might commit rape or murder?

                      Clover writes:

                      “You say that it is fine to have drunks on the road ”


                      I simply challenged your definition of “drunk.” I disagree that a person is “drunk” (that is, meaningfully impaired) simply because he has “x” arbitrary BAC. I’d require some evidence that his actual driving was in fact impaired – such as loss of control, weaving/erratic driving, an accident. If no such evidence of poor driving (as opposed to having a certain BAC) could be produced, the person – in my opinion – ought not to be punished. The fact is some people are much better drivers than others; such people may still be better drivers, even after a few drinks, than others are having had none. If their driving cannot be faulted, why should they be punished?

                      I’ve explained this repeatedly and you deliberately misrepresent my position. You’re a liar, a dishonest person.

                      Then you go completely off the rails with nonsense comments:

                      ” I guess it must be OK according to you to go to a mall and pick up a ball bat and wildly start swinging without looking around …”

                      Which would be deliberate assault – attempted murder, even. Intent to harm; effort meant to cause harm.

                      And you equate driving faster than some dumbed-down number with that.


                      “The video that google maps gives you shows that it is impossible to see cars entering your roadway until they are a couple of feet from the roadway. ”

                      When you have actually set foot on the road in question we can have a discussion. Until then, you are like the ignoramus who talks about what it’s like in Paris, never having set foot outside of Peoria.

                  • Clover says he saw a videos of your Eric’s roads on Google? Another obvious lie. Even a little kid instinctively knows to keeps his lies within reason. Poor ol’ Clover!

                    Even Google has limits. They haven’t driven down every road yet. And they most certainly haven’t driven down the back roads near “The Woods” where Eric drives.

                    Show us the link, Clover, of these so called videos of the roads Eric drives on.

                    No response? Well at least you’re smart enough to cut your losses when you’re once again caught in an obvious lie for what must be the hundreth time.

                    • Hey Mark, I already looked it up months ago. It is your turn. When you find it in google why not go shoot yourself. You can find landmarks in the video to find the location. Go for it idiot.Clover

                    • Again, Clover – just 5th grade name-calling; no adult-level arguments (based on specifics, on facts clearly defined).


                    • Clover,

                      You never fail to impress!

                      That video shows me passing in a legal passing zone! Broken lines; straight road, no oncoming traffic.

                      What’s your issue, exactly?

                      I suppose you feel that legal passing zone is “unsafe”… and ought to be painted over double-yellow, too?

                    • Eric your constant complaints in the video is what I brought up. There area where you said there should not be a no passing zone is what was in the video. The exact location where there were hidden side roads. Tell me Eric if you was on one of those side roads and you entered the roadway at the same time another driver started passing and was headed right at you at your 90 mph or whatever you say you should pass with, then would you thank him when he ran you off the road because he was executing his own judgement?
                      Eric, the the guy called me a liar when the facts were against him. Should I kiss his ass?Clover

                    • Eric you have severe mental problems. That is why you should not be driving. You were complaining about someone driving the speed limit or close to it and you were unable to get anywhere! Eric I do not know how many miles you drive on that road but if you were delayed a minute I would be very surprised by someone in your terms driving close to the speed limit. If you do not have the mental ability to follow someone for a few minutes at close to the speed limit without endangering others then should you really be driving?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Did you even watch the video you posted? I maintained a safe following distance behind a slow-poke driver, then passed him in a legal passing zone.

                      Are you “saying” that I ought not to have passed him in a legal passing zone?

                      What are passing zones for, Clover?

                      Are you “saying” that your beloved government workers who posted the legal passing zone were mistaken when they did so?

                    • Eric you were too busy complaining to pass where you said you should be able to and as you put it where you always do. I did not say that you were driving poorly in this case but according to you, you would do just that. Again I say that you have severe mental problems. The no passing zone you so complained about was seconds from the FAR safer zone. You were the total idiot that could not see a difference. Really Eric, I was able to see the difference. I guess that is why I am the superior driver. Then you complain on and on and on about someone blocking you and slowing you down by barely going the speed limit. You wanted the guy to be slowed by pulling off the road to get the hell out of the way because he was a stupid driver following the speed limit. Tell me why he was able to get where he wanted to go in a timely manner and you about had a stroke because you were unable to break the law. You need to have a person psychologist. You have mental problems.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      You have not ever even been here; you do not know the road. You do not know the area.

                      I have lived here for years and do. I drive that road every day; sometimes several times a day. You looked at a Google picture; watched a video.

                      I also know my own abilities and those of the car I am driving at any given time.

                      What is “far safer,” Clover? Says who? Can you not grok that “safety” is a subjective and variable thing depending on numerous factors and that these factors vary according to specifics?

                      You’re a eponymous “Clover” because you insist that everyone abide by your personal opinions and feelings about what is “safe” – and many other things besides.

                      Call me names all you like, but at least my standards are objective. I don’t demand that people be punished for harms they’ve not caused; only that they be held responsible for the harm they do cause.

                      I know, I know. You’ll come back with “swinging a baseball bat at people’s heads” (or firing a gun at random toward a crowd of people)… which is sick nonsense, easily dispelled. When one does either of the foregoing, there is no question that deliberate intent to cause harm is involved.

                      Driving faster than you feel acceptable, on the other hand, is just … driving faster than you feel acceptable. It does not imply homicidal intent; it does not even imply recklessness. It is merely driving faster than you feel is acceptable. It may be illegal, but that’s just a technicality, like smoking pot.

                      PS: If it were not for almost ubiquitous double yellow everywhere, when a faster-moving driver rolled up behind a slower-moving one, the faster-moving one could just pass at the first opportunity. Everyone’s happy. The slow driver continues on his way – and the faster driver continues on his, neither impeding the other. But thanks to the near-elimination of legal passing zones, the faster-mover is impeded by the slower-mover. Common courtesy ought to tell the slow-mover to pull off briefly to allow the faster-driver to pass by. But of course, that’s not what Clovers do, is it?

                    • CloverEric I know you do not have a clue what is safe or not. As you put it, you like being lucky. It is not objective that it is safe or not to pass where you said it was OK. There were a couple of blind roads that you could not see 150 feet away let alone see if there was a car there entering. I know Eric your need to break laws is better than sex to you. Your need to endanger others for the need to save less time than at a stop light is sycophantic.

                    • Clover,

                      2+2=4. That is objective.

                      “Safe” is much more subjective, especially when it comes to what we’re discussing.

                      A skilled driver in a quick car who (unlike you) knows the road and knows (unlike you) that it’s not “blind” can execute a safe pass in the 5-10 seconds it takes to do so. Whereas a driver such as yourself, of mediocre or lower skill, who does not accelerate quickly to pass rapidly, may not be able to do so safely.

                      How to tell the difference?

                      The only certain (objective) standard is whether either driver’s actions cause harm.

                      According to your statements, you’ve not done that.

                      Well, neither have I!

                      Objectively, my driving over the past 30 years is as “safe” as yours. You cannot prove otherwise. You may feel (and “say”) otherwise. But those are no more relevant than the feeling some people have that little green men exist. Maybe they do. But there’s no hard evidence and therefore, such views can be taken lightly, even dismissed out of hand. But you want your feelings to have the force of law. To punish people not for any harm they’ve caused but because you feel they might. Even if they have not been causing harm for decades. They might, at some point.

                      Well, little Clover, you might cause harm also. Do you really want my (or some other person’s) feelings about that to have the force of law? To constrain and punish you, regardless of the utter lack of any victim of yours, of any harm caused by you or your actions, but solely and only because someone worries that you might cause harm?

                      How, pray, do you defend yourself against a hypothetical? Is there any way to define a limit to how people are to be regimented, controlled and punished based on what they might do?

                      And: I follow moral laws because it’s the right thing to do. No compulsion or threats of punishment are necessary to keep me from stealing, assaulting people and so on. But I regularly ignore man-made/arbitrary laws that have no moral element when such laws are silly (“buckle up for safety!”) and none of the government’s (that is, other people’s) business or not morally binding (“drive the speed limit”), evil (“buy health insurance!”) and so on.

                      PS: I’ve been called many things, but never a sycophant. Next time, look up the word before you post. The one you wanted was sociopathic (which describes you to a “T”).

                      Poor ol’ Clover.

                    • OK Eric if as you say it may take 10 seconds to pass at let us say 60 mph that is what, 880 feet? If there is a road 600 feet away with a car entering just the time when you start passing what happens?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      In the first place, only a Clover attempts to pass a car doing 51 (in an underposted 55) at 60. No wonder you need half a mile to “safely” pass!

                      Here’s how I pass:

                      I wait for my opportunity and prepare for it.

                      I accelerate – full throttle – the moment the opportunity presents itself.

                      I use as much of the car’s available power as necessary to clear the vehicle ahead as quickly as possible and get out of the opposing lane.

                      This takes just a few seconds at 70 or 80 MPH and is the safe way to pass.

                      Unfortunately, Cloverism teaches that one must never exceed the speeeeeeeeeed limit – even when passing.

                      Passing thus becomes difficult as a practical matter due to the distances and time needed to do so legally, without “speeding” (or only “speeding” a little bit, like you advise). So most people no longer even try.

                      Which means all it takes is one Clover driving 51 in a 55 to gum up traffic for miles.

                      And, again: You’ve never even set foot in this county; yet you presume to lecture me about how to drive on roads I know intimately, that I drive every day and which I’ve been driving every day for 11 years now.


                    • Again Eric that is why you are thousands of times more dangerous on the road than I am. First off I am not going to pass someone if they are going close to the speed limit unless there are cars coming up behind me and then only if as you say I do not have to use FULL power to pass safely. If I do not have enough visibility ahead without using full engine power then I would never pass. Using your full 160 to 350 hp to pass means that you have a huge potential to crash into the car you are passing if the road is not perfectly clean. I know, you would rather be lucky than to drive safely. A superior driver would know that but you are stupid.Clover
                      I saw a video on TV a few days ago. The drunk left a restaurant and was told not to drive but he was fulfilling your wishes to be on the road. He did not swerve or drive erratically so as you put it he was perfectly safe until he made a left turn feet from an oncoming full speed vehicle. The other driver only survived because of the many air bags she had in the car. Tell me Eric what you would do without air bags, driving your normal 20 mph over the speed limit when a car turned directly n front of you?

                    • Clover writes:

                      “Again Eric that is why you are thousands of times more dangerous on the road than I am.”

                      If that were so, Clover, then how do you explain the fact that I have not caused any damage to anyone (or their property) during the past several decades of driving? Is your record better than mine?


                      What does that tell you, Clover?

                      Do you really believe I am that lucky?

                      At what point do your estrogenated fears about what might happen take a back seat to the facts about what actually has (and has not) happened?

                    • Eric you do not drive poor enough to cause an accident every day. In fact there may be only a couple of chances a week that you even could unless you drive really bad. The fact is all I can do is go by what you say on how you drive and that is poorly and taking chances with other people’s lives. If everything is perfect you will not cause an accident, the road is clean, no one entering the road at the time you pass and on and on. The fact is you take far greater chances than I do from what you say. Far more chances means that you are a far greater danger on the road than I am. Your luck just has not run out for since 30 years ago. You did hit a deer but I can not prove that it was not your fault but I would bet it was.Clover

                    • Clover writes:

                      “Eric you do not drive poor enough to cause an accident every day.”

                      How about not in 30 years, Clover?

                      Notice that I deal in facts. Like the fact that my driving has not caused harm to any person or their property. Whereas you deal in feelings and unsupported assertions – what you worry might happen.

                      I’ve tried to explain that basing a legal system – control and punishment – on feelings and unsupported assertions amounts to the imposition of tyranny for the simple, inarguable reason that controlling and punishing people who’ve not caused any harm is tyrannical. If you can’t produce a victim, then there is no crime.

                      Liberty requires acceptance of what if?

                      It’s a point that’s lost on you.

                      You want a risk-free society (based on your feelings about what constitutes “too much” risk). There is no end to it – and along the way, you build a suffocating authoritarian society in which people have less and less freedom of action (even freedom of thought, eventually) because someone can always cry that there’s “risk” involved, that something might happen.

                      Do you have any idea what America was meant to be about, Clover? I’ll enlighten you. It was not meant to be a society in which people were punished and controlled for harms they had not caused. It was meant to be a society in which people were at liberty to the extent they did not cause harm to others. Their liberty to act could only be taken away if their actions did, in fact, cause harm.

                      You and yours have been working for decades to undermine that – to replace it with a profoundly un-American society in which people are no longer free, even though they are peaceful and have caused no harm to anyone else.

                    • Eric driving for 30 years without killing someone does not mean you are a perfect driver. A very very poor driver might go 10 years or more without getting into an accident. Eric if I shot a high powered gun in your direction a half a mile away but did not hit you after a 100 shots does not say that you are safe being there. Clover
                      Eric all I hope is that when you do eventually cause an accident that the person you hit or their family knows about this site. They could take you for everything you got and put you in jail the rest of your life.

                    • Clover writes:

                      “Eric driving for 30 years without killing someone does not mean you are a perfect driver.”

                      How about not so much as scratching someone else’s fender?

                      And did I ever claim to be a perfect driver, Clover? No. Just a responsible, safe one.

                    • clover, I just realized why eric hasn’t had any wrecks due to his wild-ass driving the last 30 years. It is, no doubt, something you believe since there’s no other accounting for it as you see it…..divine intervention……on so many levels. Only God, and you must believe this I have to think, could create you AND keep us safe from eric too. DI, it’s the only way to fly. BTW, for those of you who might believe in DI, I meant no insult. You must admit, it is an easy out for anything you can’t readily explain. I prefer the scientific method but hey, that’s just me.

                      And it would account for cattle not being afraid of fire during a blizzard when I break out the marshmallows so nobody goes hungry. The calves dig it too cause I bring lots of Hershey’s chocolate bars and graham crackers. Seems like it harder and harder to come up with enough Girl Scouts these days though.

                    • Eric an excellent driver with superior reflexes and superior knowledge and judgement would not have an accident their entire life. Tell us again Eric why you failed to be a superior driver?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      I wonder whether you ever did anything as a teenager that could be characterized as an error of judgment, or which could be chalked up to youthful inexperience… and do you think that your older/more experienced self has learned nothing in the intervening years?

                      I freely admit that at 18, my judgment (no “e,” Clover) was not what it is today. At 18, I made the mistake of driving on bald tires in the rain. No one was hurt. No one else’s car was damaged.

                      And that was 30 years ago.

                      In the intervening years, I’ve not so much as scuffed a fender. And while driving (and riding) vehicles of all types and capabilities, in conditions you’ve never even imagined much less experienced.

                      I doubt you’ve ever even sat in something like a Formula Ford, much less driven one. Can you ride a motorcycle at all? Have you ever taken even a single vehicle dynamics/car control course? Met the requirements for an SCCA road racing license? Driven on the Autobahn?

                      You’re an Internet troll who drives around in a Camry… who thinks (according to your own statements) that it’s “safe” to pass by barely driving faster than the car you’re attempting to pass and that to drive faster (thus, passing faster and requiring less time in the opposing lane of traffic) is “unsafe” because of some idiot notion that you’re more likely to lose control of the car.

                    • Eric you are truly a joke. You say that you have “Met the requirements for an SCCA road racing license? Driven on the Autobahn? “Clover

                      Really Eric! You feel that makes you a superior driver on highways in the United State? 10s of thousands of people that have driven on the Autobahn have killed others on the highway. 100s if not thousands of race car drivers with thousands of times more experience than you have caused crashes and deaths on our highways. That you say makes you superior?
                      You say that you now have far greater judgment then you did when you were 18. Eric you never grew up mentally. Your need to endanger others for seconds worth of your time savings proves that you have never grown up.
                      Eric you say that you need to drive a few times into town a day that is 30 miles away and endanger others on a winding roadway just to save your sanity then a smart person would move closer to town. You will never grow up.

                    • Clover,

                      Again: My record over the past several decades – as an adult driver – is as good as yours. How, exactly, are you a “safer” driver? Your have feeling and opinions; I have facts.

                      Poor ol’ Clover!

                    • Fair enough Eric. You ask me why I am a good driver. I never tailgate. I never drive drunk. I never pass when there are roads and cars that can enter when I can not see them. I never pass on blind corners or hills. If I do pass I find a location where I have enough visibility of oncoming cars that I do not have to use FULL power as you say you do which could cause a crash if the road is not perfectly clean. I do not drive at high speeds on snow packed roads. I do not mentally explode saying that someone needs to pull over for me if they are driving close to the speed limit. To sum it up Eric, in most cases that you threaten others by your driving there is a zero chance that I could cause an accident.Clover
                      You asked me why I pass when someone is driving close to the speed limit. Eric, it is because of poor drivers like you that I am trying to stay away from. I do not want them tailgating me or passing me when they should not.
                      Again Eric you say to not pull someone over unless they are all over the road. A recent video of a drunk showed that he was not all over the road and then he turned right in front of an oncoming vehicle. It is cases like that which shows your driving stupidity.

                    • Notice how Clover omits that it pulls out in front of other people expecting them to brake to avoid a collision.

                    • Whatever you want to believe Brent if it makes you happy. We have seen your poor driving. I am thousands of times better than that.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      There is only one objective criteria one can present to fairly characterize another person’s driving: Has that person lost control of the car/caused harm to other people or their property? If the answer is yes, then you have a factual basis for faulting that person’s driving that’s damned hard to deny. If not, on the other hand, all you have is an opinion. You feel you are “thousands of times better” as a driver than Brent (or me).

                      But on what basis, Clover?

                      The fact is we’ve driven as we do for decades without losing control, without causing any harm to anyone. It is inarguable – and it is strong evidence that, regardless of your feelings, we drive safely. Meaning, in such a way as to not lose control and not cause harm.

                      Facts, Clover.

                      But you deal in feelings. Opinions.

                    • Eric with your logic there could never be anyone prosecuted for attempted murder. If someone is stopped in the process of a burglary they could not be prosecuted in your mind because they did not finish the job. Eric I believe that others have the responsibility to drive safely and in a responsible manner around me and my family to reduce my risk of danger and harm but you say that drivers can do whatever the hell they feel like and if I am injured then it is my fault for being there.Clover

                    • Thank you very much Brent for the video. It proved my point. I told Eric that he should not be passing where he can not see a driver entering and the driver could not see him. Your example is exactly why I complained about Eric’s style of driving. Thank you for showing us how poor of a driver that Eric is.Clover

                    • How many times, oh Clover?

                      Driving is a skill that varies from person to person. Many variables. The human and the mechanical. This is a self-evident truth. Yet you deny it, insisting that one size (yours) fits all with regard to such things as traffic laws and what constitutes “unsafe” under the law.

                      I’ve tried to walk you through this obviousness by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to require an expert skier such as yourself to ski no faster than the “safe” speed for a mediocre skier. Driving – anything that involves varying levels of skill/experience – is no different in principle.

                      But you do not grok principles (or concepts) and that is precisely what makes you a Clover.

                    • Clover, Eric is a motorcyclist and thus knows how to drive with regards to them. You however have written numerous times that traffic on the road must brake for you because otherwise you would have to wait too long for a gap. You’re going to kill someone or yourself some day driving like that. Should that occur, hopefully you’ll spare others injury and harm only yourself by pulling out in front of a very large truck or train.

                    • Eric you just do not get it. As an expert skier I am free to ski as fast and as dangerously as I like to when the course I am on is blocked off from other skiers at the time. Eric you are free to do the same on your local track. If I ski as fast and as dangerously as I like when others are around I get kicked out just as it should be. The ski areas do not want the liability of allowing dangerous people skiing on their resort. Why should we as a society allow dangerous actions by drivers on our highways? Eric in your society we would not need to get a drivers license because in your world anything goes so why learn how to drive correctly?Clover

                    • Eric in your society we would not need to get a drivers license because in your world anything goes so why learn how to drive correctly?

                      This is assuming that everyone with a driving license drives well.

                      Ideally there should not be any restriction on someone’s ability to travel freely between two points.

                      Even if there were zero licensing requirements, that does not mean (nor imply) that “anything goes”.

                      I do not have (nor need) a license to ride my bicycle. However, If I harm another individual and/or damage their property while riding my bicycle, them I am responsible for repairing the harm/damage caused to the best of my ability.

                      It (a lack of a licensing requirement) does not mean I can do anything I please without any experiencing any negative consequences.

                      There is no such thing as a risk free world. Even walking outside your home has some risk.

                      If someone causes damage/harm to another person and/or their property, then that someone should be responsible for repairing the harm they cause.

                    • Mithrandir keep it up spilling out your stupidity. Maybe at least you might believe it. Mithrandir you go and kill someone’s son or daughter and tell them how you are going to accept responsibility and tell them you had the right to drive in a dangerous manner around their son or daughter. I guess they would respond by saying OK right before they blew your head off with a shotgun. Mithrandir your logic is pure stupidity.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      I observe once again your conflation of an actual with a hypothetical. Mith has not “killed anyone’s son or daughter” – but you try to equate his criticism of your insistence that people drive at speeds you decree to be “safe” as tantamount to actually having killed someone.

                      You, me – anyone – might “kill someone” at any moment. It is a possibility. But it’s demented and sick to pre-punish people as if they had in fact killed someone when they’ve never so much as inadvertently stepped on someone’s toes.

                      Especially when the action in question does not involve intent to kill or harm; when, indeed, there is no evidence (beyond your feelings) that the action is even “unsafe.”

                      I am about to post a video that details this point in living color and at greater length. Just for you, Clover!

                    • Eric you are demented and sick. The son or daughter of millions families is in your hands every day in which you say it is your right to drive dangerously. Eric the family of that son or daughter could give a rats ass whether or not you had direct intent on that particular son or daughter. All they care about and what really matters in the end is whether their child is hurt or killed by senseless actions that you say is your right to do. Clover
                      Eric you will never get it because in the end the world is all about you. You do not have children to protect or care about. You would just as soon have them all killed so you will not be bothered with them on the road.

                    • Clover,

                      I “say” you ski “dangerously” and put at risk the “safety” of “millions of families” every time you ski faster than I consider to be “safe.”

                      I realize, of course, that a creature such as yourself cannot grok the above.

                    • Eric do you have sever mental problems or are you just a huge liar? You mentioned that the clover was only driving 49 mph in a 55 mph zone at the same time you were passing a 45 mph recommended speed sign. Why don’t you end your miserable life?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      You will note that (a) the 45 MPH yellow sign is not a speed limit. You will also note that (b) I did not pass the Clover in the curve, where the sign was posted. I passed the Clover on an open stretch of road in a legal passing zone. The Clover’s speed on this portion of the road was well under the PSL. I had been caught behind this Clover for some time prior to beginning the video.

                      What’s your issue, Clover?

                      The argument (based on facts, not feelings) presented in the article is that most posted limits are under-posted, according to objective engineering criteria (85th percentile standard). Therefore, a Clover doing 51 in a 55 is in fact driving at least 10-15 MPH below a reasonable (85th percentile speed).

                      You seem to believe other drivers should accommodate themselves to this snail’s pace. And that passing them at 85th percentile speeds is “dangerous.”


                      And worse.

                      In the first place, the entire dynamic could be corrected by posting reasonable speed limits (if we must have such at all) that at least comport with the 85th percentile standard.

                      In the second, passing quickly and efficiently should be taught and encouraged. Because it’s safer. Your cruise-control form of “passing” is, in contrast, exceptionally dangerous.

                      Try to use whatever gray matter you possess, Clover. If the determinative factor that makes driving “safe” or “not safe” is velocity, then the only “safe” thing to do is to reduce velocity to zero.

                      That would be “safest” of all… right, Clover?

              • Clover:

                “Eric I could care less if you kill yourself but you have no right to block roads and delay me and others while hundreds of of your libertarian idiot friends have their cars towed..”

                So how are you that positive it wouldn’t be you the idiot blocking everyone else? How are YOU allowed to drive in a storm and not Eric or others here?

                Your hypocrisy is ludicrous.

                • Clover writes,

                  ““Eric I could care less if… ”

                  For the umpteenth time, after being corrected for god knows how many times.

                  Clover, for the umpteenth and one time, it’s

                  “Eric, I couldn’t care less… “

                  • Hi Bevin!

                    The unintelligent don’t appreciate that they are, in fact, unintelligent. It goes with the low IQ, the cognitive incapacity.

                    The reasonably bright may not comprehend Quantum Mechanics, but they are bright enough to realize that fact.

                    Clovers aren’t bright enough to realize they’re not very bright… which wouldn’t be a problem if the system hadn’t empowered them. 100 or so years ago, a person such as Clover would have found meaningful work as a field hand or some other such thing. He would not have been able to translate his resentments into control over his betters.

                    • Eric – interesting analysis of Clover’s ‘brilliance.’
                      According to John Taylor Gatto, a secondary purpose of the tax-funded mandatory school system is as a jobs program for those intelligent enough to not want to be just cogs in the production/consumption machine, but not intelligent enough to realize that, as ‘teachers,’ they are just tools of the Establishment, useful idiots.
                      The lowest scores recorded on GRE exams are those of education majors.
                      Maybe Clover works in the GIC system.

                    • Hi Phillip,

                      Yeah… and sad, too.

                      He literally cannot follow a logical argument because concepts and principles are beyond his ken. Dealing with him is like dealing with an animal. It’s all about training and rote memorization based on reward/punishment. Clover is just a vessel, really. A vehicle for the thoughts/impulses of others; thoughts and impulses he’s been conditioned to accept and venerate. Which is why he rears up in a rictus of incoherent rage whenever these are questioned. Think: Four legs good! Two legs bad!

              • What about me, clover? Do you still want me to live? That makes me sad, if so, that you somehow consider me your ally. An accomplice from another orifice? A fellow incoherent from another foster parent?

                Do you like John Wayne, Clover? Or would you troll his website too? He requested that his gravestone read: “Feo, Fuerte, Y Formal.” But his survivors put something else on there to their liking, seeing as he was dead, and no longer payed the bills.

                Here’s another Duke quote:

                “I want to play a real man in all my films, and I define manhood simply: men should be tough, fair, and courageous, never petty, never looking for a fight, but never backing down from one either.”

                Say what you want about his political beliefs – John Wayne was one of the most hard-nosed, meanest, most badass motherfuckers in American film history and the ultimate big screen tough guy of his generation.

                He was the consummate Western hero, creating and defining a role as a hard-drinking, hard-fighting ass-kicking gunslinger who would punch his own mother in the face just for looking at him funny.

                Just listen to this Wayne quote and tell me this man was not as hard as a fucking railroad spike:

                “I made up my mind that I was going to play a real man to the best of my ability. I felt many of the Western stars of the twenties and thirties were too goddamn perfect. They never drank or smoked. They never wanted to go to bed with a beautiful girl. They never had a fight. A heavy might throw a chair at them, and they just looked surprised and didn’t fight in this spirit. They were too goddamn sweet and pure to be dirty fighters. Well, I wanted to be a dirty fighter if that was the only way to fight back. If someone throws a chair at you, hell, you pick up a chair and belt him right back. I was trying to play a man who gets dirty, who sweats sometimes, who enjoys kissing a gal he likes, who gets angry, who fights clean whenever possible but will fight dirty if he has to. You could say I made the Western hero into a roughneck.”

                Are you really the smoothneck you pretend to be here clover? What would you do, if unprovoked, another man broke a chair over your big green four petaled head?

                  • You’ve written far more than I ever have. Yet not once has anyone responded to you in a positive way.

                    Here’s a throwback to your very oldest comment…

                    Submitted on 2010/11/20 at 1:35 pm | In reply to eric.

                    Would you say it is fine for a person to shoot a gun through a crowd? That is like letting drunks drive down the road. If you know that there are people that will be shooting their gun through crowds would you allow them to enter without being checked or will you say that they should be let in and maybe grab them after they shoot a few people. That is the same thing as drunk drivers on the road. I have been at what you call traffic screening and there is absolutly no rights violations when they did it. I would be willing to be stopped a thousand times if it saves someone’s life but i guess you can not be bothered for 5 minutes. You say that you violate all laws and that is ok but if someone delays you for a couple of mintues you say you were injured by it and against your rights. You need to go and live in places like the back areas of India where anything goes. No big deal when someone dies there because it happens so often with their anything goes driving.

                    – clover your walls of text written while biting your nails and soiling you panties haven’t hurt this site, they’ve only made it stronger.

                  • clover, I love this comment of yours: Tor, I want you to live. Who else could shut this site down……????? And that is your entire raisin detre for being here. Tell me clover, if you can in words the rest of us can understand, what do you gain by shutting this site down? Money? Lots of it? Attagirls from some of your screwing buddies who hate freedom? Or would it be some sort of personal satisfaction? Is there anyone you could boast to if you really thought or somehow got credit from someone else for shutting this site down?

                    Instead of an exchange of views as everyone else on this site seems to want, you merely want to kill it off. Is it that scary to you or does it simply pay cold, hard cash. No obfuscation now, say it like it is. WHAT do you get if this site gets shut down and you get the credit from some entity?

                    If someone has the power to simply shut this site down, wouldn’t it bring at least a small amount of fear what else they might do…..to you?

          • Clovér,

            Do you even know what a blizzard is? Regardless of your understanding of the meaning of different words, why are other individuals that are not tangibly harming another any concern of yours?

            If you are concerned about the costs that these people might cause, then send them the bill. Perhaps if more people experienced the consequences of their actions, they might make more prudent decisions.

            • Mithrandir you are worthless. Send a bill? What is that going to do for the guy with his house burned down because you blocked the fire trucks. What is that going to do for the dad or mom that dies because the snowplow and ambulance where blocked? Mithrandir I would think that libertarians would never do preventive maintenance on their cars. Just let it blow up and then pay the bill. Is that really the libertarian way of dealing with life?Clover

              • Clover,

                You present hypotheticals. Ok. Here’s another: What about the “dad” or “mom” who gets killed by you in your uninsured car that you’ve driven because you could?

              • Clovér,

                You are full of assumptions.

                (1) You assume as given that one will get stuck.
                (2) You assume as given that a fire will occur during the same time that someone gets stuck.
                (3) You assume as given that ambulance and/or fire truck can not get to this house due to the individual stuck in the road.
                (4) You assume as given that people will die in this fire.

                The probability of all these occurring is very low. I would estimate it at less than 1/2 of 1% at best that your worst case scenario occurs.

                From your statement it appears that you are against life insurance. After all, the financial compensation for ones life is not worth it according to you.

                I am surprised that you have not added the start of WWIII because of lack of a horse. Alas, A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse! All because you got stuck in the snow.

                Go back under your bridge and keep everyone else on the roads safer.

                • Mithrandir I would like to see you try to drive with 30 inches of fresh snow with 50 mph winds. Libertarians are stupid. Libertarians want to make others deal with your stupidity.Clover

                  • Clover,

                    I haven’t gotten stuck in the snow (much less impeded others by getting stuck) ever. Just as I have never wrecked because of alcohol in my system. Yes Clover (borrowing your lingo) such people exist. The competent and able. You assume, on the other hand, that others are uniformly as unable and incompetent as you are – and project your fears of yourself outward.

                    Poor ol’ Clover!

                  • Clovér,

                    Your comprehension of written English is appalling. If you are intelligent (which I highly doubt) you do an excellent job hiding it through your writing.

                    Your reply is non-responsive to what I wrote to you.

                    You state:

                    What is that going to do for the guy with his house burned down because you blocked the fire trucks. What is that going to do for the dad or mom that dies because the snowplow and ambulance where blocked?

                    I think your scenario is very unlikely. If you think it is likely, then prove it. It is your assertion, so you have the burden of proving it.

                    Go back under your bridge and keep everyone else on the roads safer.

                    • Mith you are the one who is brain dead. Tell me Mich if they were calling for 30 inches of snow with 50 mph winds where you live would you be in a hurry to get out and drive? Tell me Mith how many inches of visibility would you have with 30 inches of snow and 50 mph winds? Would it be one or two inches? Yes Mith if you can drive safely with couple of inches of visibility then you are a far better driver than I am . You would be a far better driver than anyone else in the world. If Eric says he can then he is a liar.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      You repeatedly accuse me (and others) of lying yet I am always prepared to back up whatever I claim with facts. For example, I do indeed drive my 4×4 truck in heavy snow on unplowed roads here in rural SW Virginia – and have yet to either get stuck or impede anyone else’s ability to get around or impose “costs” on a single soul. Unlike you, I have the necessary equipment, skill and experience to deal with heavy snow. The fact you’re perpetually afraid of everything does not justify your ninny fears becoming the basis for how I or others live our lives.

                      Go tuck your dick (if you have one) between your legs, Buffalo Bill style and do your little dance in front of the mirror.

                    • Clovér,

                      Your comprehension of written English is still appalling.

                      Your attempt at avoiding the issue is noted.

                      I still think your scenario is very unlikely. If you think it is likely, then prove it. It is your assertion, so you have the burden of proving it.

                      Where/when did Mich recommend driving in 30″+ of snow with 50 mph winds? (Who is Mich?)

                      If you bothered to read the commens on this page you could see that I never did recommend driving in bad conditions.

                      Take your straw-man and go back under your bridge. This will keep everyone else safer on the roads.

                    • Mithrandir this whole blog is about your right to drive in some of the worst conditions imaginable. A pure white out. The government said stay off the roads and streets because they were calling for 50 mph winds with gusts up to 70 mph and 30 inches of snow. Your friends here said no one has the right to tell them not to be on the road when such conditions occur. I said that with zero visibility and up to 25 feet drifts you are endangering others having your car stalled on the roadways. If anyone trys to go to work when the weather clears they would have to deal with idiots like you and have to tow hundreds of cars before the road crew can clear a path for everyone else to get to work. You in effect want others to be harmed by your stupidity.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      This web site exists to promote and defend the sovereign individual’s right to decide for himself, to weigh risks and assume them if that is his choice… and if there are consequences, to bear them.

                      But if there are not, to be left in peace, free to go about his life.

                      And that it is an odious doctrine to pre-emptively assume harm done or control/punish one person because of what another person has done, or might do.

                      Wretches such as yourself insist that others be forcibly constrained to assuage your fears of “what if?” and “someone might” or because Smith has done this (and therefore, Jones must be punished pre-emptively).

                      If you were even slightly more intelligent, one might persuade you using reason and logic (inference and deduction).

                      But – unfortunately – you are not sufficiently intelligent.

                    • Rule by expert. A government expert decides something horrible is going to happen so that justifies trampling people’s liberties. That’s your argument, Clover.

                      But here’s the thing, government experts lie to keep the money flowing their way. At best they interpret things most favorably to what government wants. Hence the imaginary snow storm you keep harping about.

                      Government should concentrate on what every libertarian is often reminded is the government’s primary mission, care of the roads.

                    • If only they were expert! At least then, one might make a practical argument. But (cue Seinfeld) who are these people? Take Clover, for instance. What expertise has he – formally or experientially – to lecture any of us about anything? Part of what’s so galling is exactly that. Being lectured – dictated to – by mediocrities and know-nothings.

                      In the fullest sense of the term, Clover is an untermensch. Of (at best) low-average intelligence; possessed of no particular talent. A herd animal, pining for “safety” and resentful of his betters.

                    • CloverYes Eric but you declare yourself as a libertarian. Do whatever the hell you feel like as long as it does not harm others. Eric stranding hundreds of vehicles on the roadway is harming others. Tell me Eric what gives you the right to take liberties away from me and others? Eric, what gives your the right to decide for yourself what risk of harm you are giving to others? Eric I could care less if you decide to harm yourself but the decisions you want to make harms others. Tell me what in our constitution gives you the right to harm others?

                    • But Clover, I haven’t harmed anyone. Do you see?

                      At what point does your feminine fear that I might carry less weight than the fact that I have not… over my entire life, a period spanning many decades?

                    • Clovér,

                      What is so wrong with charging people that get stuck in inclement weather with the cost of their rescue?

                      If someone’s car breaks down, a tow truck is called and they pay the owner of the truck for the tow and storage if applicable. This would be a similar situation.

                      If one is fearful of getting stuck and they do not need to be out, then they should stay off the roads. If one must be somewhere, then one takes their chances (especially if they are a poor driver).

                      As Eric noted: You (Clovér) are in favor of punishing people based on what might happen.

                      I think it would be better to deal with people based on what they do, instead of what they might do.

                    • The plan of our ‘betters’ is so well constructed. Appeal to people’s compassion to build institutions and societal structures that turn people into idiots then use the fact that people are idiots to justify ruling over them and controlling every aspect of their lives.

                      Instead of fighting against it the people welcome it because they all see their fellow man as morons that need their betters to keep them safe. And that’s what our Clover here is arguing.

                      It’s rather brilliant. By the time the plan is bloom (now) few people have fought off the dumbing down or learned what is now ancient history to be able to recognize what happened or why.

                    • Mithrandir it is impossible to get through that thick skull of yours. You just don’t get it. It is all about good and bad drivers to you. No Mithrandir it is not. The best driver in the world can not drive through a storm when 30 inches of snow are falling and 50 to 70 mph winds. No one on this planet can drive in such conditions. You don’t understand that? If you say you can go because it is not snowing that badly and the wind is not that bad and half way on your trip the visibility turns to zero. What do you do? You are then harming me and others because you would then be delaying me and others when conditions improve because snow plows would be delayed by you. You say fine them? How is that compensating me and hundreds of others who are delayed and harmed? Why do libertarians get to make decisions that harm others?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      As recently as, oh, ten years ago, “lockdowns” were unheard of in America… unless you were in a prison. Now the entire country is a prison.

                      Because of estrogenated hysterics (and moral imbeciles) such as yourself.

                      Who will next demand (and that we accept) “lockdowns” when it rains a lot (or might). When it’s “too windy.” Or a limitless roster of other bogeymen ginned up by you and yours.

                      Go chew on a fish head.

                    • Clovér,

                      So now you are concerned about being delayed.
                      Are you suggesting that all left lane losers should be made to pay the people they are delaying?

                      To paraphrase you: What is your hurry?

                      Isn’t that what you tell people wanting everyone to follow the “Keep Right Pass Left” rule.

                      I still see that your reading comprehension is lacking. I suggest you read (as many times as you need) what I wrote. When you are done reading, then reply to what I wrote (not what you think I wrote).

                      You can drive (or not drive) in any conditions you wish. If you get stuck, then you should get stuck with the cost for removing your vehicle off the road (or ditch). If you do not get stuck, then you do not get charged.

                      (Since you appear to be very dense today: If someone is made to pay the cost for their removal from the road, then this should be a financial incentive for them not to get stuck on the road.

                      One might think that if they did not think they could safely drive, then they would stay off the road. If they could not figure it out, then one would hope that the first “rescue-bill” would be incentive enough to stay off the road during bad conditions. Only very few people are so dense that they would need to pay more than one “rescue-fee”.)

                      To hear you speak, one might think that millions of people are getting stuck on the road.

                      Go back under your bridge and keep everyone else on the roads safer.

                    • Mithrandir there is no hope for your stupidity. Yes as far as I know people are billed for having them towed when getting stuck. Clover
                      Tell me one person who changed their behavior because of that? Mithrandir for libertarians there is no negative affect of thinking about getting billed for doing something that you do because according to you and others here you can drive drunk, drive recklessly, drive in zero visibility, drive through 25 feet drifts and on and on and on. Libertarians like you are too stupid.

                    • Clovér,

                      Resorting to name calling does not support nor strengthen your position.

                      To paraphrase your words:

                      Individuals (including yourself) can not be trusted to determine if:
                      (a) Is it important enough to go out in the weather.
                      (b) they are able to deal with the weather if they decide to go out
                      (c) they are willing to bear the consequences of their decision.

                      Some person from the group known as government must make a decision on whether it is safe enough for travel or not. (This decision may or may not be the correct or best decision for you or any other individuals.)

                      I never recommended driving in bad conditions.

                      I would think that only a fool or a desperate person would travel when 12″+ snow is in the forecast.

                      Even though I may not think it worth the trouble to go out, it may be important enough to another individual to go out. If they get stuck, then they must deal with the consequences.

                      Tell me one person who changed their behavior because of that?

                      You are saying that not one person will change their behavior if they faced the financial responsibility of their actions? I find that difficult to believe. Do you have data to support your position?

                      The rest of your statement is full of non-sequitors.

                      Do you have any data to support your position from below?
                      What is that going to do for the guy with his house burned down because you blocked the fire trucks. What is that going to do for the dad or mom that dies because the snowplow and ambulance where blocked?

                      I did not think your hypothetical situation was very likely to occur. (less than 1/2 of 1% of occurring) Do you have any data to state otherwise?

                      Go back under your bridge and keep the roads safer for everyone else.

                    • Mithrandir you display no common sense and that is why I know you are stupid. You want data? Really? If you are on the road and it starts snowing heavily and the wind starts blowing at 50 mph or more how much data do you need to know that you are driving no farther? Mithrandir that is common sense to know that when the visibility turns to zero you car is dead in its tracks unless you have someone outside feeling where the road is and other vehicles. Like I said you are stupid. Yes government needs a lock down because of stupid people like you that can not understand it is a bad thing for anyone to be on the road when the visibility turns to zero. When you car stops in zero visibility the heavy snow drifts around your car. When the visibility clears there is a huge chance you are going nowhere. I was driving down the road a couple of weeks ago in an area that got nowhere close to 12 inches of snow and the truck that was just off the roadway had drifts up to the top of the cab around the vehicle. Clover
                      Mithrandir if you want dozens of those trucks or cars stalled on the roadway when your house catches on fire then good for you. You get what you were asking for.
                      Yes Mithrandir when people like you feel you are an excellent driver and you can go out and drive when they are calling for one of the worst blizzards possible, it takes the government to stop your stupidity. If there are 50 cars driving down the road and the first car runs into zero visibility then you all get stuck and do harm to yourselves and others. What gives you the right to delay a road from reopening for hours because you are stupid

                    • Clovér,

                      Name calling still does not support nor strengthen your position.

                      You want data? Really?

                      Yes, I do want data.

                      Mithrandir if you want dozens of those trucks or cars stalled on the roadway when your house catches on fire then good for you. You get what you were asking for.

                      Again with the fire (fear) mongering.

                      I think your scenario is very unlikely. If you think it is likely, then prove it. It is your assertion, so you have the burden of proving it.

                      What gives you the right to delay a road from reopening for hours because you are stupid.

                      Never happened.

                      Although I have personally witnessed many “Left Lane Richards” blocking the flow of traffic on the interstates and other multi-lane highways.

                    • Clover,

                      The question isn’t whether it’s prudent to attempt to drive in a snowstorm. It’s whether “locking down” an entire city like a got-damned prison is right.

                      You’re not thoughtful or bright enough to grasp the principle at stake. Which is that if the government (which, remember, isn’t some sort of omniscient deity but just other people – typically mediocre people) has the right to treat citizens like inmates in a prison by “locking them down” in their own homes (and – as in Boston – violating their homes at will and frog-marching them out of their homes at gunpoint) then they are no longer citizens of a free country but are in fact prisoners

                      What you want is in fact a societal prison in which everyone must do as they are told – or else.

                      For “safety” and “security.”

                    • Yes ERic and you miss the point. If it is going to snow worse than my example in Chicago with the same winds what good is it to not have a lock down? Tell me what is your benefit other than strand 100s of cars, hundreds of people and harm others by blocking snow plows and emergency vehicles and harm others when you request others to save your ass? Eric your argument is stupid.Clover

                    • Not once have I requested anyone “save my ass,” Clover. When does your feminine hysteria about mights – confected in your Mangina Mind – take second place to facts? Such as the fact that I have never requested your “help” to “save my ass,” much less impeded or interfered with you in any way whatsoever.

                      Yours is a Mangina Mind beset by endless hobgoblins; it must be exhausting to constantly cringe in fear of phantoms. I’d feel sorry for you – really – if you didn’t also insist that others be treated literally like inmates in a prison to make you feel “safe.”

                      Why not just seek out the local veal farmer and ask him if you can have a crate? He’ll keep you safe and snug; no worries about anything…

                    • Clovér,

                      Name calling still does not support nor strengthen your position.

                      I read the NYTimes article you linked. I am not sure if this article supports your view that that an individual from a group known as the government should have the right to order people off the road.

                      Some passages from the article:

                      When Jenny Theroux plotted her commute home Tuesday afternoon, she was certain she would arrive well before the full force of the blizzard hit. For the final leg of her trip, she turned onto Lake Shore Drive, this city’s wide and busy thoroughfare along Lake Michigan, at 4 p.m.

                      The city did not close the Lake Shore Drive until 8pm that evening.

                      City officials warned Tuesday that snow would begin falling by midafternoon and that conditions would become treacherous into the night, particularly along lakefront roads where the winds were expected to whip Lake Michigan’s waves into ocean-grade breakers.

                      Workers fled downtown early, jamming roads earlier than usual, especially Lake Shore Drive, which is eight lanes wide in some sections. Then, as evening arrived, five accidents shut down the thoroughfare — one sent a bus spinning across three lanes.

                      It appears that people were warned that “conditions would become treacherous into the night, particularly along lakefront roads“.

                      Many people decided to heed the warnings and leave work early. (I presume that they were going home.) Unfortunately many people became stuck on the Lake Shore Drive on their way home.

                      Are you suggesting that the city should have closed the city of Chicago down before any snow fell from the sky?

                      Should all the people that were working that day have been prevented from going home that afternoon?

                      Do you consider those people trying to get home to be idiots?

                    • CloverWell Mithrandir if the city announced a lock down of the road would occur in the early afternoon then this would not have happened would it? That is why lock downs are good before it gets really bad isn’t it? If you wait for a lock down when the visibility turns to zero then most people would be smart enough not to drive wouldn’t they? Hundreds of people would not have been trapped in their vehicles. It would not have taken the extra hours to tow all those vehicles and clear the road. Isn’t the story exactly what I have been saying and something you are too dense to understand or should I say too stupid to understand? I am sure there had to be one of your superior drivers that got trapped on the road.

                    • Clovér,

                      if the city announced …

                      Now you are just playing Monday morning QB. You are judging the decision (by the city in this case) based on the results. You do not like the result, so you think the decision was not right.

                      Based on what you are advocating, government could shut down a city (state or government) on the flimsiest of reasons. There might be some snow, rain, sleet, ice, etc. Instead of declaring a state of emergency due to an actual emergency, you prefer to give the government the power shut areas off for hypothetical reasons.

                      By that logic, I might as well lock you (or anyone else) in a cell because you might harm someone in the future.

                      You think it was the right decision for someone in government to decide to close the city (state/country) down because of (insert reason here).

                      I think that informed people will be able to make a decision that is best for themselves.

                      In a city with about 9-10 million people, most (over 99%) of them were able to safely make it home with out the need for government to lock down the city.

                      I suspect in the future, that many of those people stuck during the Feb 1, 2011 snow on Lake Shore Drive, Chicago will make different choices when faced with similar circumstances.
                      (different routes home, not go in to work, work from home, stay at a friends house, etc.)

                      People will take responsibility for themselves and do what is best for them.

                      Name calling still does not support nor strengthen your position.

                      You never did give an estimate for the likely-hood for What is that going to do for the guy with his house burned down because you blocked the fire trucks. What is that going to do for the dad or mom that dies because the snowplow and ambulance where blocked?

                      If you think it is likely, then prove it. It is your assertion, so you have the burden of proving it.

                    • I can just see it now. Hey clover, I have to feed the cows some hay. Clover replies, but but but, it’s snowing and I can’t see(look a bit harder a-hole)and the wind is blowing 50-70 mph.

                      Yep clover, you got it, that’s all true and the very reason I have to get out and hay the cattle and break the ice on the troughs even if I get very cold doing it, even injure myself. Some risks are simply unavoidable for those who give you your safe life.

                      Hey guys, get out of those trucks, off those poles and forget power…..that’s dangerous and clover has plenty of back up heat……doesn’t she?

                    • Thanks for that one, Eight!

                      If Clover had been on the Spanish throne in 1491, Columbus would never have been allowed to set sail.

                      Too dangerous.

                    • Thank you very much Mith—-. You show us the stupidity of libertarians. Let them drive drunk and after they kill someone else they will surely learn.. Mith— that is where you and I are so different. I believe in learning from mistakes done by others so I and our society do not repeat it. I do not drive drunk because thousands of others have killed people by doing it. Clover
                      Maybe New York learned from others and decided they did not want to deal with hundreds of idiots stranded, the extra hours towing vehicles and the delays all of that causes. I tell you what Mith– why not make libertarians in charge of rescues and let the city off the hook. Make libertarians like you rent a tow truck and spend hours towing vehicles. Mith why don’t you call me when your house catches on fire and I will call my friends to block your house from the fire trucks. Tell me the statistics on that Mith. You are damn stupid.

                    • How many times, oh Clover?

                      No one here has ever defended “letting them drive drunk.” We’ve argued against treating everyone as presumptively drunk. For the same reason we don’t (yet) treat people as presumptive murderers – and require them to prove they’re not.

                      When will your Mangina Mind grasp this distinction? Is your Mangina Mind even capable of grasping it?

                    • Clover,

                      You don’t believe in learning from the mistakes made by others. You believe in preemptively punishing people for the possible mistakes others might make.

                      It is currently 4 degrees in my neck of The Woods – and blizzard conditions, with a foot of snow anticipated. I just got back from a run to the store, which for me is 30 miles down the road. I made it there and back without incident, without requiring your or any other Clover’s “help” and inconveniencing no one. I’ve done similar for more than 30 years. Never once have I wrecked, blocked anyone’s path or done a single thing that you or anyone else could point to as evidence of my not exercising good judgment and demonstrating competence as a driver.

                      Yet you think I should be forced to stay home when you decide it’s “not safe” for me to be out. Who are you to tell me (or anyone) anything about cars or driving, Clover?

                      Can you explain why I or any other person ought to be subject to your Mangina Mind fears? If you can’t deal with a given situation, then don’t. But don’t insist others be forcibly interfered with just because you’re inept, or because your mind twat’s gushing with fear over the “risk.”

                      You’ve yet to answer my question: When does your fear of “might” and “what if” take a back seat to the absence of actual harm caused or problems created over a period of many decades running?

                      How about it, Clover?

                    • CloverEightsouthman yes you may be one of the stupid farmers that waits untill a blizzard starts to go and fee cattle but a good farmer sees the forecast that a blizzard is on its way and takes extra hay before the blizzard starts. If he still needs to be there to clear water during a blizzard he sure the hell does not wait until it starts to head down the road 20 miles. A good farmer would do what he has to do and camp out with the animals if needed. A blizzard by definition means almost impossible travel if not impossible. You sure the hell would not listen to a forecast with 50 to 70 mph winds with 30 inches of snow and start at the last minute to try to take care of your animals. If someone has to be at work and they hear a storm is coming then they camp out at work. It happens all the time but I guess not for libertarians.

                    • Eric I have seen no one as stupid as you except possibly Mith—. You do not know the difference between 50 to 70 mph winds with 30 inches of fresh snow compared to your forecast of 8 to 12 inches of snow with 5 to 8 mph winds? You really do not know the difference? You are damn stupid.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      I’m more literate than you. I speak and write better German than you do English (which, apparently, is your second language).

                      I’m more learned than you.

                      I am a better driver (and motorcycle rider) than you are.

                      I know more about mechanical things than you do.

                      So if I am “damn (sic) stupid,” what does that make you?

                      In any event, the point of contention here is whether it’s right to “lock down” a community – to violently insist that people remain in their homes, like inmates in a prison. You argue that it is right – in order to keep people “safe.” I argue that it is very wrong, because no one is “safe” if they have been reduced to the status of prisoners in their own homes, subject to violent repercussions if they dare to attempt travel without the state’s permission.

                      You are too “damn stupid” to grok that if the state can “lock down” a community for one reason, then it will inevitably do so for other reasons. In time, the authority of the state becomes limitless.

                      You are unable (apparently) to recall that at one time – and not very long ago – the idea of “locking down” a city would have been regarded as beyond the pale, something that might happen in a place like the old Soviet Union. But not here. Not in America.

                      Unfortunately, it is happening here. Because of un-American cretins such as yourself. Who are serving as Lenin’s “useful idiots,” helping to usher in an American version of the old Soviet Union.

                      I’m an NAP kind of guy, Clover. But if I had super powers, I’d pluck you and every single person who “thinks” as you do out of the body politic like a tick off a dog and deposit all of you together in the vacuum of space. I’d root out the defect in the human genome that results in creatures such as yourself.

                      There may be a place for Gamma Machine Minders and Epsilon Semi-Morons in every society. But their numbers must be kept in check.

                    • CloverOK Eric you win. No lock downs. Let hundreds of people go onto the roads when there will be zero visibility any time. Ok Eric if you agree to pay for the extra expenses of clearing the roads, the extra costs of people late for work because you say that you have the right to delay others for hours. What gives you the right to lock me in my house while they are removing your idiot friends? I do not care how many languages you speak. Without common sense then what good is it? What good is it to allow people to go out in zero visibility and block roads from snow plows and emergency vehicles. Why do libertarians feel they have the right to harm others?

                    • Clover,

                      Why should I bear any responsibility for what others do?

                      If I cause you harm, them you have every right to hold me accountable. But no one else.

                      And if I do not cause you (or anyone else) any harm then I have every right to be left alone.

                      When will your Mangina Mind grok this?

                    • Tell me Eric how do I get money from you when you harm me for being late for work because you chose to ignore any common sense by staying off the road with zero visibility or 30 inches of snow?
                      Tell me Eric how do I get money by being harmed by the couple of accidents I was behind on the interstate that delayed me for hours? All they did wrong was go over the speed limit and hit someone.Clover

                      You say that you can do anything you like and if it causes harm to others then you will pay. How is that Eric? How are you going to pay for my losses?

                    • Well, Clover, before you have any right to “get money from me,” I must first have caused you some harm. If I have not caused you any harm, then you’ve got nothing to worry about.

                      Right, Clover?

                      Again: When do your Mangina Mind fears about what someone might do take a back seat to what I have actually done?

                      Or not done?

                      Let’s try it another way:

                      I worry you’re not bright enough to decide which foods are “safe” …. and that you might become obese/hypertensive and this could “impose costs on society.” Therefore, I think you should be compelled to eat only the “right” foods and be checked on periodically and randomly to make sure you’re not imbibing “unsafe” ones, or partaking of “dangerous” activities.

                      How about it, Clover?

                    • CloverEric I could care less what foods you or I eat unless it causes you to drive erratically and cause harm to others. If your decisions causes harm to others then I say it is a bad thing. You say you have the right to cause harm to others and when you do then you will pay.l You still did not tell me how you will pay if there are hundreds of people harmed. How will you do that Eric? How will you repay others when you block the roads for hours?

                    • But Clover, I care very much about what foods you eat. Just as you’re worried I might “block the roads for hours,” I am anxious that you will get diabetes and impose costs on society.

                      Do you see, Clover?

                      No. Of course not.

                      And that, dear Clover, is why you’re a Clover!

  31. Geez, cold and snow in the winter. What a surprise. Globull warming should have NYC completely submerged like Atlantis by now and Siberia a tropical paradise. Isn’t there a law against blizzards and noreasters?

    Besides, everything is 4 wheel drive now so getting stuck is so 20th century.

  32. The precedent for all of this was set 35 years ago in Connecticut when Governor Ella Grasso declared a state of emergency during the February 6 blizzard of 1978 and shut down the entire state. Travel was prohibited. Even back then, you could get a ticket for going anywhere. I remember it like it was yesterday.

    The precedent was set. The sheeple saw the propaganda news reports that the clean up effort went well, etc and they largely supported Grasso and her efforts.

    So, the precedent was set 35 years ago.

    • Calendar precedent for current American police-state is unclear– but it’s been brewing for a long time… and really metastasized after 9/11.

      “Controlling the Situation” (with force/threats) is now the 1st & primary impulse of government officials (especially cops). Actually helping the public or defusing tense situations is a far secondary concern. Showing the public “Who’s Boss” expands government elbow room by brushing aside pesky rights & legalities.
      Lockdowns, Shutdowns, Perimeters, Prohibited Spaces are now common from grade-schools to entire metropolitan regions.

      Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was another classic example. The Feds/FEMA were so intent on ‘establishing control’ around New Orleans… that they blocked evacuation routes & critical supplies from reaching the desperate people. Strong-arm government mismanagement transformed a difficult natural disaster into a historic catastrophe. “Heckuva Job, Brownie”

      And those ‘Soviet bigwigs in ZIL limos…with broad avenues empty except for them’ — is commonly duplicated now across America. Traffic Lockdowns for U.S. Presidential travel have reached truly outrageous levels, but now many lower officials are adopting similar imperial motorcade lockdowns. I well remember Candidate John McCain’s motorcade shutting down a major 30-mile stretch of Orlando freeway so that he could cruise to a routine campaign speech in 2008.

  33. Here in the snowy Chicago NW Indiana area, the travel bans due to snow weather can now last longer then they used too as well. How, you may ask?

    Back in the 1980’s snow clearing wasn’t hindered by green mandates like they are now. When it was snowy and icy, most towns and states would salt (salt being pretty cheap then too) the h*ll out of the roads and highways. It was unheard of to have a local interstate close because of the weather. Generally by the second day after a bigger snowfall, most main streets would be cleared curb to curb and dry, and side streets would be at minimum slushy but mostly cleared. Snow days were never more then one day when I was in school.

    Now in 2015, snow days are often snow week. Yes, missing a whole week of school after a snow storm is becoming very common (I would have loved that as a kid). It can take days for the roads to be cleared properly because they use so little salt. Other more “green” options that they use are generally not as effective and more costly. In my town they now only lightly salt main streets and intersections of side streets, they don’t even try to salt the remaining side streets. So they stay snow bound and icy much longer then they used too. I no longer tarp my parkway to prevent salt spray anymore. Our interstates get closed almost every year by some storm, that would have never happened back in the good old 1980’s.

    It certainly is far less safe, which is strange considering the “safety society” of most government agencies now.

    • I’ve been in the chicago area all my life. I remember a snow day back in the 1970s and then nothing until the blizzard a couple-three years ago and nothing since.

      Everything else has been get your ass to work.

      got to leave work early a few times because of snow.

  34. I hate to say it, but the Democratic Peoples Noreastern-Korean Colonies of New England seem beyond hope. The best chance the rest of us have, is probably to build a Great Wall to keep these statist zombies hordes out of what’s left of the rest of North America.

    Thanks To Dear Leader De Blasio; Booker; Cuomo; Christie; Malloy; et. al., Josie the Outlaw appears to have thus far survived the Great Blizzard of 2015.

    No word yet on Cantwell, Rose, and the rest of the free-denizens of Mordor.

    “People tend to accept martial law without question when it’s marketed as a “snow emergency travel-ban.”
    If you are caught violating a snow emergency travel ban, you can be charged as a criminal, even if the storm predicted does not actually happen.
    Land of the free though, right?” – Josie the Outlaw

    • Isn’t it a shame that the Yankees of the 1850’s did not carry through with their threat to secede from the Union in protest against slavery?
      Not that I am in favor of slavery, but there are many varieties of slavery, including the 16th Amendment.

      • A rock hard right libertarian would forcefully advocate the righteous institution of slavery where warranted.

        When A borrows from B and fails to make repayment according to terms, A would descend into indentured servitude to B as a matter of social consensus and principle of equity.

        Should A continue and fall even further hopelessly delinquent in his repayment. B should have the right to sell A in the open market to the highest bidder.

        Any dependents of A not divorcing themselves, would also be the human chattel of B to be extinguished according to B’s judgement.

        The flaw with American slavery was when the slave catchers kidnapped people instead of purchased them honestly.

        Another flaw was the psychotic notion that enslaved humans can in anyway be mistreated or aggressed against.

        An owner of a slave, should rightfully have no more recourse against his human property, than would any employer or member of an extended family member.

        You can’t chain, whip, cage, and otherwise abuse freemen. A just society that wished to retain slavery, would simply extend this prohibition to slaves as well as freemen.

        To make your slaves work, you could withhold food beyond minimum sustenance and other luxuries until they got back to work.

        But you could not permanently harm them or cause them injury, merely because they refused to pick the cotton, or pay their shared responsibility payment.

        • Slaves under the Torah were allowed to be beaten, as long as they were back on their feet within 2-3 days. The loss of labor was considered to be punishment for the slaveholder. Permament injury (loss of an eye, tooth, etc.) resulted in the slave being freed.

          • Interesting.

            In modern day America, I could see them turning off a slaves electricity and disabling his auto and phone. Maybe even lock him in his home where until he complied with his lien-holder.

            Right libertarianism can go way out there as far as property and contract rights go. I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.

            I myself prefer individualist liberal and left libertarianism with limited recourse for property owners but NO state or authority intervention or redistribution whatsoever.

            If you have the means and know how to build motorcycles and sell them. Then you also have the know how to enforce your property rights and contract rights.

            In my phyle, it’d be up to the proprietor to enforce things. He’d have complete freedom to do whatever was needed. No limits at all.

            Under AUTHORitarianism, the AUTHOR of property and services would keep complete rights over his creations, but it the onus would be entirely on him to enforce them.

            I want no part of a fugitive slave system enforced societywide. Especially not a fugitive debt slave system, being that I am one of them.

          • Let me clarify one point – the slaves could be beaten by their masters. Anyone convicted of beating someone else’s slave owed restitution – to the slave’s master due to loss of labor.

      • Slavery to the government is alive and well. It’s prohibited by the constitution but when has that bothered the gestapo agents. Heil deblasio!!!!huthuthut

        • The 13th Amendment prohibited the PRIVATE ownership of slaves. Even before the 16th was (supposedly) ratified, conscription was alive and well.

  35. Eric,

    I would think that only a fool or a desperate person would travel when 12″+ snow is in the forecast. (forget the fact that the system traveled about 50miles east of where predicted resulting in much less snow than predicted.)

    Many fools cannot travel during optimal conditions, yet these geniuses want to travel in snowy, icy conditions that could become blizzard conditions.

    Same said geniuses become stuck. Their vehicles hinder road cleaning activities.

    Should people be banned from travel? Ideally no.

    If people become stuck and cause hassles for road cleaning activities, then perhaps they should bear the costs for dealing with them. This includes costs for anyone that needs to rescue them due to their incompetence.

    • I predict these fuckers and attendant boot polishers will be obliterated from the face of this planet or widely scattered someday soon. Der Tag Kommt.

      I forecast a reaping of a category 5 whirlwind from everyone else on this planet, who rebels against their tyranny and vanquishes them gloriously.

      These so called “forecasts” come from the enslaving panopticon system of surveillance satellites.

      Why legitimize anything that comes from these tools of democide at face value? It is unlikely they can be captured, best thing to do is knock them out of the sky if the chance occurs.

      As they now exist, they are completely evil, only an Uncle Tom would consider them in any way of benefit to him, IMHO.

      • “Lick a boot! And you will find that the polish of life comes off, but the taste remains the same. And the tongue can never be told a lie.”

    • Hi Mith,

      What gripes me is the premise that we’re all idiots and to be treated as such pre-emptively. It’s of a piece with absurdly low DWI thresholds based on BAC readings only, ridiculous speed limits and many of things.

      I’ve ridden with several cops; witnessed many of them in action. I know I’m a better driver than most; that I am more able to deal with snow than most of them. Who are they to demand I “stay off the roads” (which I was forced to “help” pay for)?

      I much prefer your approach. If someone causes a problem, then hold him accountable. But enough with this tripe of holding us all accountable for things we haven’t done because someone else might do them!

    • How about if the snow plows just pushed the cars out of the way and kept to their timetable? That may be a fair solution that would just stop unnecessary travel in the snow. Clover would freak out to see his slow jalopy being pushed into a ditch or another car, etc.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here