What’s The Carbon Footprint of The PopeMobile?

295
7509
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pope, it’s said, wears Prada.popemobile 1

And travels by Mercedes, too.

But apparently, he’d prefer you (and millions of other ordinary human beings) not.

Because “global warming.”

Er… make that “climate change.”

The new – more general – term for the allegedly human-caused alteration of the planet’s weather. “Global warming” had to go because global cooling was also inconveniently happening.

This was becoming globally embarrassing.

“Climate change” is much better, because it always fits. The climate is constantly changing. And would do so (and has done so) regardless of the presence of man on this Earth. But why not just blame man for it?

For everything?

Perfect!plane pope

The fact that this re-branding was necessary says more about the politics of “climate change” than its scientific validity. Despite the near-unanimity of media Tele-Prompter readers and politicians, experts in the field (as opposed to “environmentalists,” a non-degreed title anyone can claim) are far less certain about the assertion that recent changes are abnormal, much less the result of human activity – and so reluctant to endorse the imposition of extreme (and expensive) government regulations and taxes on billions of humans that will impoverish them but not the elites (including the Pope) whose super-sized carbon footprints will continue to tromp the Earth.

The average TeeVee viewer, for instance, takes at face value the media’s lockstep assertion that the “science” is “settled.”

Not so.climate change lead

What the TeeVee talking heads never mention is that the basis for the “climate change” assertion is a scientifically shaky United Nations (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) position paper – not peer reviewed – that’s based on broad-brush computer modeling. Your local weatherman has about a 50-50 percent track record of accurately predicting whether it will rain next Sunday – but we are supposed to take as gospel that a UN computer model can predict – absolutely, with virtually no reasonable doubt – that the entire planet will suffer catastrophic “change” five (or is it ten? twenty?) years from now … unless massive taxes and controls are imposed on its populace right now.       

In others words, the IPCC Report is a political rather than a scientific document.

Indeed, many of the “scientists” who’ve endorsed the IPCC report are not credentialed experts in the relevant fields (see here for an excellent Forbes piece on the subject). The average person being fed the “climate change” line may be unaware of the fact that one need not be a climatologist (or even a meteorologist) to qualify as a “scientist” for purposes of hawking “climate change.”

Which is like going to see a podiatrist for a heart problem.    climate change 2

Meanwhile, those who are credentialed experts – like MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science (and member of the National Academy of Science) Richard Sloan and UVA’s Fred Singer – but who disagree with the assertion that a changing climate is abnormal (and that human activity is the primary or even a significant driver of such change) are conveniently ignored.

Or vilified.

Not their questioning, per se, of the “climate change” religion. But rather, their motives for questioning it.

Again, politics – not science.

If the coverage of “climate change” were less about agenda-driven politics (create the sense of a looming crisis to browbeat the public into accepting more taxes and a reduction in their – but never the elites – standard of living) people might be more aware that  in excess of 31,000 actual scientists (as distinct from politicians – and popes) have openly questioned the scientific validity of the IPCC report, affixing their names (and their reputations, something no scientist does lightly) to a petition that reads, in part: “… there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Will the climate “change”?time cover

Certainly. It changes hourly. Seasonally. Yearly. Sometimes – over time – it changes dramatically. But man did not cause the Little Ice Age – a period of unusual cold that the Earth has only recently snapped itself out of. And man did not cause the much higher global temperatures (and much higher atmospheric C02 concentrations) that allowed the dinosaurs to thrive, many millions of years ago.

The fact that pushers of global C02 taxes and such have had to fall back and adjust their terminology to fit warming and cooling and anything else in between – any “change” in the Earth’s climate – stinks of politics, not science.   

Pope Francis seems to be a nice man – but he is no more a scientific expert than Al Gore.

And while both the Pope and Al Gore have bought-in to “climate change,” neither of them have stopped shopping. Or traveling. Both of which – according to their own public scoldings – are environmental no-no’s that ought to be discouraged.

Perhaps they ought to lead by example.   

Why is it that they never do?

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:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

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!)EPautoslogo

     

Share Button

295 COMMENTS

  1. Clovers make the trains run on time. Money is no object when it’s taken from unseen victims. All methods are on the table when your ends are achieved using unseen means.

    Clovers often took the land the railroads were built on. The problem with industrial capitalism, is it never really troubled itself with the longterm effects of cutting corners and screwing the little guys.

    Clovers consider themselves reasonable. Of course I’m good for nothing personally they say, what does that matter. What counts that I’m part of a good country. Live in a good neighborhood. Know good people and enjoy good consumer goods.

    It’s just modern reality they say, who needs to hunt, gather, engineer, build, and maintain. When someone else does all of that for you, and know one expects you to do anything. As long as there a button to push, or a place to go for whatever they want, clovers are rolling in clover.

    This kind of decline has been observed and documented across many species in many studies. Put animals in a bad and debilitating system, yet let them enjoy the same level of comfort and pleasure they’re used to, and they accept it without question.

    In both humans an animals, each improvement in commerce or behavior that benefits the group eventually caused power grabs to crowd out older former means of commerce and behavior that had come before and been sufficient.

    Historically, factories didn’t just churn out better mouse traps. Or evolutionary adaptations didn’t just increase populations. They also lead to declines of individual members of the population.

    Industrial capitalism seems to believe there’s an infinite market available, and there’s always new sucker being born to sell the next greatest thing to. But it never reflects on what these marvels are doing to the customers and workers.

    This is not to say any kind of coercion or forced redistribution is warranted. Or necessarily that legacy methods of creating goods and services automatically deserve respect and consideration.

    Clovers are wrong in every way. But we can’t say with certainty our way is without its problems and inequities as well. The most we can say is that ideally, it is only at the individual level, that improper things will occur.

    The honest truth is, we’re already a conquered peoples, and there’s only so much we’re going to be able to accomplish on our own.

    For the most part we’re unable to create products without coercion any more.

    Rather like the Indians after their European domination, we mostly sit around talking and typing. And learn of the doings of other people by reading, listening or watching them.

    We don’t often have our own ideas anymore, we get them from one mode of media or another. Or from someone who’s connected to the coercive apparatus to think of the things for us.

    We grew up in front of the newspaper, the TV. Spent time in the backyard or on the roads enjoying the fruits of coercive capitalism. We were consumers, not free people who were able to individually be doers.

    It might be tough going, this voluntary values mode of production we’re discussing. But it is crucial that we convert to it sooner, rather than later.

    If we wait too much longer, we’re going to completely fade away, and it will be like the can-do pioneers who did it all for themselves and were self-sufficient, never even existed.

    • What you are dancing around above, E.G. here:
      Industrial capitalism seems to believe there’s an infinite market available, and there’s always new sucker being born to sell the next greatest thing to. But it never reflects on what these marvels are doing to the customers and workers.

      This is not to say any kind of coercion or forced redistribution is warranted. Or necessarily that legacy methods of creating goods and services automatically deserve respect and consideration.

      Is called “enlightened self interest,” which I’m sure you’ve heard of before.

      What we have now is very little in the way of enlightenment (wisdom), and a surplus of knowledge – so, self-interest rules the day.

      Previously, people thought about what would be good and “right” (Even if in the religious sense) – and therefore, while they COULD produce things like, say, kaleidoscopes, these things went to amuse children.
      And that’s a limited market, and of limited utility. Adults don’t get sucked in for long, it isn’t interactive.

      Now, we have children raised with electronic hyper-stimulation, and adults are about as dumb as a stump, and still want their “fix” of dopamine, serotonin, etc. It is an addiction, started with radio, then kicked to high-gear with TV, then video games, then on-demand TV and Internet and better, flashier games….
      Less and less interest in education, even less interest in understanding (More important than knowledge itself is knowing what to do with knowledge, and why, and being able to articulate it), and the attention span of a fruit fly.

      This allows the reductio ad absurdum logic to flow from their oral fecal spewing device, and most don’t question it at all. Those that do are already libertarian or conservative (classical liberal), and can articulate the problems with a Liberal spew or a Conservative spew – but no one WANTS to hear, let alone think.

      I was brought up to be an egalitarian; I am advancing ever more strongly towards being an elitist.
      I disagree with The Elites as to what actually makes a person elite, though. That thinking blob is sort of important – being good looking, wealthy, and vapid is NOT the mark of the Elite, save that’s how the wish to be perceived: Wealth is next to Godliness.
      Character? Fortitude? Logic? Knowledge? Intelligence? Real-life experience? These things are discounted by The Elites…. Making them worthless for anything except eye candy.
      A dog is a better companion (at least you don’t have to pretend to listen. Seriously, the biggest GUARANTEE against marriage is listening to a woman. Even when she’s talking about something, the conclusions don’t follow from her “logic,” and the topic is usually unimportant. All I hear is, “Me, me, me, ME, me me me, mememe, ME, Me, Me me me me….” I keep waiting for a “Fa” in there somewhere, but always end up reaching for the duck tape. Since I am not allowed to tape her lips shut, I usually tape my ears shut…. 😛 )

      And a Male Elite…? Somehow, you end up wondering – are they wearing a pink thong today? Or did they go for a v-kini…? 😛 😉

  2. Clover talks nonsense about privately owned roads being too expensive to use. An entrepreneur, of roads or anything else, must find a price to charge that many people are willing to pay, or he will never recoup his investment. Clover knows nothing about the free market.

  3. Clover,

    I don’t think we need to compare ourselves to each other. Or that we have any obligation to identify ourselves or divulge details in order to hold a meeting of the minds.

    But you’ve been calling eric out for quite a while now. Now you claim he’s a joke to you. I’ve seen you before, because at one point you posted a YouTube video of yourself having a rant about something or other, I couldn’t really make heads or tales of it. But I do remember what you look like, your living situation, and what your voice sounds like.

    Any of us can assess eric, he’s a public figure. He’s posted publicity pics with him on a motorcycle. If there was some kind of ranking system, he’d probably be considered the 10th most influential independent libertarian thinker, or something like that.

    We see him rebuilding bikes. Riding bikes. Being trusted with brand new vehicles and asked to give reviews on them. Yes he’s extremely cash poor. But his home is probably worth low mid 6 figures. He also has an inventory of vehicles.

    He’s written two successful books. He asked on radio shows and on popular websites as an expert in his field. He entertains and informs 75,000 – 100,000 people every month.

    What I find most impressive is he puts up with you. And posters like me that can’t really follow rules that benefit a group or property owners, yet he rarely rejects my submission, even though some of them have been way off topic and highly unpopular.

    I don’t think I need to go further, though I certainly could.

    Where’s your pic with you in your vehicle. Some shlub nobody sitting in his poorly maintained high mileage clovermobile. Probably unemployed for quite a while now. Your stories of driving for work might be true, but they’re memories at this point, not current.

    Your only asset is likely a 401K of some kind. And it’s not performing all that well. And you think you’re so brilliant because you’ve listened to CNBC or some other mainstream media talking head about investing, not realizing its all a bunch of sales puffery.

    The beliefs of the financial press are no more substantive than those of the Catholic church. It’s all just a bunch of self-serving dogma, with no grounding in anything real.

    I love to hear you respond and prove me wrong. Tell us what you recommend us to invest in. Tell us what you have to add to the world. We can read what the government recommends directly, we don’t you to regurgitate it for us.

    What do you have to offer anyone. What insights or anecdotes do you possess. Let’s here what you have to say about yourself, your preferences, and your accomplishments.

    Tell us why you’re not a joke. And why we shouldn’t all continue to make sport of you and completely ignore you.

  4. We and the planets and the stars.

    Are all beings and absorbent and radiant bodies, are all making our marks within our orbits, and leaving our footsteps made up of 65% oxygen, 19% carbon, 10% hydrogen, 3% nitrogen, and 2% other.

    And that’s what is the most astounding fact.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

    That is what is important and is real and endures. It’s the birds and the bees and their efforts and experience that matter. Not the nests and the hives.

    The cars are important because we make them and drive them. Because everything we make and everything we experience is made up of the very same stuff. And we are just now beginning to understand what there already is, and what there will someday soon be.

  5. What are the chances the great majority of people only care about their own survival and prefer to survive as comfortably as possible. Maybe history really has shown that a large number of people have decided the easiest way to survive comfortably is to entrust the biggest decisions to government.

    Perhaps the truth is governments grew all-powerful because in most cases, they earned it, and that most people are actually happy to be taken care of and ordered about by strangers. And that’s okay.

    If this is true, and it seems quite possible, then it means that all the outreach in the world is a giant life-consuming waste of time and energy that will never succeed.

    The conclusion then becomes clear: those of us who value individual sovereignty (libertarians) need to establish our own community away from the others and be prepared to defend it with every weapon available. Anything else is to avoid the truth of the situation, and to spew endless hot air and waste your life.

    Maybe we just let the statists live. And those in the middle keep on living exactly where they are. And concentrate our energy on building our own thing. Focus on the “let live” and get down to the business of living the way we want right now, no matter how small of a minority we are.

    What if 99% of libertarians avoid this due to bad programming and thus waste their time on ego battles, pissing contests, drama, voting, self-aggrandizement and trying to spread a message that will never resonate with the masses?

    What if all that is between you and the life you yearn for is the courage to set the bullshit aside and start pursuing it, whatever the cost or inconvenience. What will you do then? Why not start living the life you want right now, and to hell with the opinions and sentiments of everybody else?

    – – –
    China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation… Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing
    http://www.naturalnews.com/050816_Tianjin_explosion_space-based_weapons_military_retaliation.html

    • There will always be some who want a Nanny state. And we should not attempt to force them to do w/o it. After all, that would be aggression.
      But there are plenty out there who accept gunvermin only because they have never considered the possibility that they (and everyone else) would be better off w/o it. That is where we need to educate.

      • PtB:
        The rub is…. From here:
        There will always be some who want a Nanny state. And we should not attempt to force them to do w/o it. After all, that would be aggression.

        While we have a filter on aggression, they do NOT.
        So, constraining them becomes necessary at some point: E.G., Maryland can have all the government they can afford, but Virginia gets to go without (fill in he social program sucking public finds.)
        Local choice.

        What this always deteriorates to is (ask the Native Americans), “We know what’s good for Virginia, so we’ll force Virginia to accept Maryland’s rules.” Further, anyone who can think notices the rules didn’t WORK in Maryland; that’s why Virginia didn’t make those laws. (E.G., Chicago gun laws; Australia gun laws; UK gun laws and bullshit knife laws, now!)

        Clover should either be bred out of existence (Impossible), or constrained for their own protection. Child-proof caps, however, aren’t. There is no one-size-fits-all Clover Killer.
        But we better figure something out soon, TPTB – all “aligned with” Clover (Useful Idiot ^ nth power) – already are determining what color shirt we’ll wear next Thursday, and correlating that to whether we have violent tendencies (according to them, we are ALL violent heathen savages, hence their use of Clover’s fear in pursuit of their agenda, using easily-duped Clover to clamor for their intended aims: Disarmament & Enslavement of the populace.)

        The cycle repeats through history, and we learn from it, or repeat it.

        • But if we force them to do w/o their nanny state, then we have descended to their level. We are allowed to use defensive violence, and would probably need to when they try to use ‘universal’ funding for projects that are not universal.

          • Forcing them to do their “nanny state” within ONLY their own borders is, to my way of thinking, quite acceptable. Also doesn’t sound much different from what you’ve said.
            I’m willing to be “aggressive” in persuading them to stay there (and to WANT to stay there, even when it devolves to communism. Can’t allow the infection to spread.)

            Let the disease burn itself out.
            That includes leaving them to starve afterwards, heartless though it is.
            Why?
            Because they NEVER learn. Tor posted something similar above – leave the comforts, the animals don’t care what else is going on.

            The problem is, they won’t do the same. Either they’ll look to us, being successful, and envy; or they’ll look to us as “poor benighted heathens” in need of Nanny Government to take care of us. Either is aggressive force; the best means of preventing that aggression is to make it constantly visible they’d lose more than they gain. And that we’d stop at nothing less then genocide, once they push us to war.

            Clovers understand nothing else. If they think they can win, they attack. If they don’t think they can win, they use “reasonable” laws and 5th column attacks.
            Winning is their only desire. Only rule.
            Total annihilation is the only possible means of controlling them, basically. They don’t understand live and let live; let history teach the remnants the truth of “live and let die.”

            As a parallel, to make a long post even longer…
            Dating blog, guy is dating a foreign woman in her home country. They’re out with the family, I understand. She has to go to the ladies’ room; a male is expected to go with her. He, being US-born, doesn’t understand at first.
            His point in telling the story: You don’t realize how LIBERAL you are, living here…. You’re seeing the world through rose-colored lenses, unaware of the lenses themselves.
            He was in a conservative country… He was expected to take care of her this way, even if it wasn’t needed.

            Clover wants to be taken care of the same way…
            Clover also believes YOU must suffer the same fears and problems.
            Clover believes Clover is ALWAYS right, and there is someone who can be anointed with the Mark of Authority….

            Your survival, and Clover’s individual survival, doesn’t matter. It’s the sheep paying the wolves to not eat them (go eat the sheep on McGregor’s farm instead.)
            Sooner or later, the wolves run out of other sheep, or just get lazy… The cost goes up, and a sheep or two get eaten (people die by police) just to keep the rest of the flock in line…

            So, we need to be ready, willing, able, to firebomb them and listen to the fat crackle as they burn out.
            They’d do it to us pre-emptively.

            We’re dealing with psychopaths, they don’t process information the way we do.
            We’re more like the wolves, but we’re civilized. Sheepdogs, to point to an old gun control analogy.
            Just, the sheep don’t understand they invited the WOLF to be the police, and the sheepdogs are engaged in productive labor… We have better things to do, by nature, than take care of sheep who neither want nor need our guidance and care (“every woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle.”)
            So, FTAFTFH.

            And when they burn themselves, keep repeating: DILLIGAF? (Do I look like I give a f…?)

            ‘Cause they’ll point and laugh at you if you get burned….

            Just illustrating.

  6. American is an occupying military presence in Japan and Germany, against the will of their govts and people.

    America has friends in its subject nations in the same way Russia had friends in Poland and East Germany.
    – – –

    Clover, be a man and admit you were lying about owning 5% dividend stocks, it’s not that big of a deal.

    Here are the stocks you were pretending to own…
    http://www.thestreet.com/dividends/leaders/

  7. FFS clover, if you had any clue, you’d have used the term “dividend yield.” SMH.

    In NASDAQ’s latest report, they listed only 17 of their 3,100+ stocks as having a dividend of 5% or higher.

    Do give us the ticker of even one of the stocks you’re talking about.

  8. OSHA says increasing CO2 levels 7x is still safe for workers to breathe:

    CO2 is present in the atmosphere at 0.035%. In terms of worker
    safety, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for CO2 of 5,000 parts per million (ppm) over an 8-hour work day, which is equivalent to 0.5% by volume of air.
    – – –

    The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) TLV (threshold limit value) is 5,000 ppm for an 8-hour workday, with a ceiling exposure limit of 30,000 ppm for a 10-minute period.

    A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces
    intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness.

    Acute toxicity data show the lethal concentration low (LCLo) for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes.

    CO2 is a good indicator of proper building ventilation and indoor air exchange rates. Consequently, it is measured in buildings to determine if the indoor air is adequate for humans to occupy the building.
    http://www.amazon.com/DIOXIDE-Temperature-Humidity-DataLogger-Monitor/dp/B00SJ0JCU2

  9. What Philosophical School of Thought are you in? (me: Hedonism. Hedonists believe life is for living to the max. This means doing what feels good without regard for consequences in another life or from a supernatural force. Pleasure above virtue.)

    12 questions to answer, then wait for it to calculate.
    http://www.playbuzz.com/julianr12/what-philosophical-school-of-thought-are-you-in

    Philosophical Health Check

    The test will only take about 5 minutes of your time. We’re going to present you with 30 statements. All you’ve got to do is to indicate whether you agree or disagree with each statement. If you’re not sure, then select the response that is closest to your opinion (and then take this into account at the analysis stage).

    You should note that the test does not judge whether your responses are right or wrong. The important thing is simply to respond as honestly as possible. Each statement is carefully worded, so you need to pay at least a little bit of attention!
    http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/

    • I tried to take this test, but when I got to the 3rd question and had not seen any answers I liked I decided it was not for me.
      Thanks anyway, Tor.

      • No prob PtB.

        It took Aristotle 12 books to cover the topic of “What Is Reality” 2,400 years ago, these days we don’t have enough mental discipline to write a short story about such topics any more.

        Men chimp out when you ask them those kinds of questions. Perhaps rightly so, since most of the time the asker is trying to strong-arm his own crappy ideas in a dishonest way.

        We’re all using Aristotle’s subject & predicate system to compose our sentences to this day, but sadly, we lack the basic skills to even examine such things any longer.

        It’s encouraging to me, at least one person is willing to try.
        – – –
        Aristotle considered the most fundamental features of reality in the twelve books of the Metaphysics.

        Although experience of what happens is a key to all demonstrative knowledge, Aristotle supposed that the abstract study of “being qua being” must delve more deeply, in order to understand why things happen the way they do.

        Earlier philosophers had created more difficult unanswered questions, even as they had answered the more basic ones.

        Aristotle intended to do better than the ones before him. He felt the Milesians over-emphasized material causes; Anaxagoras over-emphasized mind; and Plato got too bogged down in the theory of forms.
        http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2p.htm

    • I felt a bit like PtB but answered as best I could. Mine was Skepticism. My basic philosophy of life is simply this, do what you do well and give it hell, and that means for me, working hard(if I gotta work at all), play even harder(try to make this your mainstay) and anybody who doesn’t like the way I live can KMA…….over and over. We all get in each other’s way inadvertently but for those who do it intentionally to me, be prepared to pay the price. And never, ever tell me what to do. It ain’t anybody’s business. I appreciate suggestions but don’t push it beyond that.

      • Sorry, I’m probably immune to whatever’s in that quiz makes people cringe.

        I’ve listened to the demons. Worked with the demons. Fought with the demons. And most importantly, I’ve learned from the demons.

        I’ve come to the conclusion it’s never too late. And there’s always a way. Everybody and everyone has a use if you can catch them on the right day.

        All of our words and declarative concepts are little more than vanity at this point. We’ve hardly made a smudge on just our own galaxy so far.

        All of humanity’s mark is only this tiny 200 light year dot
        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/27/article-0-11EF84AB000005DC-183_964x959.jpg

        The virtue in life is found in the consumption. Whether it takes hard work or it comes easy to you, is all the same in my book. But it sure makes for a better story, hearing someone tell you how they only came about something the hard way.

        I’d be okay if the rest of the US just faded away, and only Texas remained. It does seem like one of the few bright spots left anymore.

        But even in Waco, a man can still get machined gunned by heroes, and no one will hardly even hear about it.
        http://www.agingrebel.com/13301

        When did being a bunch of hungry bikers enjoy a beer and a burger become grounds for summary executions? At least none of the ladies got hurt.
        http://houston.culturemap.com/news/restaurants-bars/07-30-13-the-biggest-breastaurant-ever-greater-houston-gropes-for-the-honor-with-first-mega-peaks/slideshow

        Heroes say Twin Peak staff and waitresses could have been deputized and prevented the massacre… (USA TODAY)

        Waco, Texas police say they recovered clubs, firearms, brass knuckles and other weapons from the scene of a gang shootout at a Twin Peaks restaurant. They also revealed that the restaurant’s management had been warned about impending trouble.

        WACO, Texas — A deadly gunfight between rival motorcycle gangs at a local restaurant could have been prevented by the eatery’s management, Waco police said Monday.

        Nine people were killed and at least 18 more were injured in a melee Sunday involving guns, knives, clubs and other paraphernalia at the Twin Peaks restaurant. Police said Monday that more than 160 people were being arrested on Engaging in Organized Crime charges.

        Waco Police Department Sgt. Patrick Swanton said police knew before Sunday’s shootout that there would be trouble. Police had officers at the scene and attempted to work with management before Sunday, but the restaurant refused, Swanton said.

        “What happened … could have been avoided if we would have had management at a local establishment listen to their police department and assist us,” Swanton said. “They failed to do that, and this is the event that happened.”

        Swanton said all of the dead or injured were “members of criminal biker gangs.” Bystanders at the shopping center and a nearby restaurant — as well as police present when the shootout spilled into the parking lot — were “all unscathed,” he said.

        “I was amazed that we didn’t have innocent civilians killed or injured,” Swanton said Monday.

        More than 170 face charges in deadly Texas melee
        9 dead in biker gang gunfight at Texas restaurant

        The restaurant’s interior was littered with bullet casings, knives, a club, bodies and pools of blood, he said. Authorities were processing the evidence at the scene, 95 miles south of Dallas. About 150-200 bikers were inside during the shootout, and at least 100 were detained, authorities said. It wasn’t immediately clear how many were arrested.

        Parts of downtown Waco were locked down, and officials stopped and questioned motorcycle riders. Agents from the FBI and federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were assisting local and state authorities in the investigation.

        The initial fight began in the Twin Peaks restroom and then moved outside, Swanton said. Authorities increased security in the area to quell fresh attempts at criminal activity after the melee, he said.

        Swanton said at least 50 “bad guy” weapons were recovered.

        According to police, eight people were pronounced dead at the scene and one person died at the hospital. The injuries of those taken to the hospital ranged from stab wounds to gunshot wounds. Some had both.

        Off-duty officers were on the scene, they saw what was happening, armed themselves and tried to stop the battle, Swanton said. “That saved numerous lives,” he added.

        Officers shot armed bikers, Swanton said, adding that the actions of law enforcement prevented further deaths. It wasn’t immediately clear whether any of the nine dead were killed by police officers.

        Waco Police Sgt. W. Patrick Swanton told KWTX-TV there were “multiple victims” after gunfire erupted between rival biker gangs at the restaurant.

        Rival biker gangs — the Bandidos and the Cossacks, according to law enforcement sources — met for some type of recruiting at the Waco Twin Peaks location.

        “That’s what started this process (Sunday), was a bunch of criminal element bikers that came to Waco and tried to instill violence into our society, and unfortunately they did that,” he said. Swanton also said members from up to five different bike gangs were involved.

        Twin Peaks’ local and corporate offices released statements Sunday in response to Swanton’s remarks that the restaurant’s management could have prevented the deadly brawl.

        A statement from Jay Patel, the operations manager at the Waco location, referenced “positive communications” with police”

        We are horrified by the criminal, violent acts that occurred outside of our Waco restaurant today. We share in the community’s trauma. Our priority is to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for our customers and employees, and we consider the police our partners in doing so. Our management team has had ongoing and positive communications with the police and we will continue to work with them as we all want to keep violent crime out of our businesses and community. We will continue to cooperate with the police as they investigate this terrible crime.
        Swanton called Patel’s statement “an absolute fabrication.”

        A statement from Twin Peaks’ Dallas franchiser, which operates independently of the Waco location, said:

        “We were shocked by the shootings that took place in the parking lot of our franchised restaurant in Waco and are fully reviewing all the circumstances surrounding it. We are thankful no employees, guests or police were injured in this senseless violence outside the restaurant, and our sympathies are with the families of those killed.”

        Waco police say they contacted Twin Peaks’ national office a week ago after local management would not cooperate.

        “It’s not a criminal charge not to listen to law enforcement,” Swanton said, but police will pursue all possible charges.

  10. Clovers and other statists completely fail to step up when asked to fund the government they claim everyone needs so badly.
    http://www.gofundme.com/sjnad935

    Alabama has a $300 million budgetary shortfall. A gofundme account was set up to close the gap.

    It’s been 3 days and only $270/$300,000,000 has been voluntarily raised so far.

    Clovers are dishonest shitbags who are only for taxes when its some other guy who’s to be taxed.

    Maybe the states were somewhat United up until the 1950s or so. But at this point, it’s only bread, circuses, guns, bombs, and psychotic mercenaries who are keeping this dog and pony show half-heartedly going through the tedious meaningless motions.

    • If Texas did that I’d contribute about 23 tons of something, the most vile thing I could find in that amount to load into a big rig and dump at the capitol……that vile cloverian narcissistic statist yankee haven Austin has become.

  11. eric, I’m posting an article from Rigzone since it’s difficult to have a conversation about hybrids or any other vehicle and not somehow get back to oil production.

    This article rightly points out the truth about Tx. oil production and how it relates to worldwide oil production and the price of fuel and oil.

    While the author points out active drilling rigs this year are down compared to last year, it’s certainly no “doom and gloom” story since the rigs running this year, of which there are more as the year goes on, are the new, very sophisticated rigs that drill the new style of production, i.e., horizontal drilling and drilling as many as 6 holes sitting in the same spot.

    I know the rig count is growing since I haul equipment from rig to rig for a major driller. I also build infrastructure for oil and gas storage facilities. I’d be surprised if the figures here are not smaller than what the end of the year will tell. Every time I got to an offloading facility, trucks are lined up for each bay night and day to offload oil regardless of location.

    Should anyone be interested, here’s a good article and access to other timely articles as well.

    http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=139915

  12. Debating someone such as a Clover is really pointless. These people are unable to understand logic and cause and effect.

      • It is always with great mirth that I read the back and forth between Clover and non-clovers. “Libertarianism is stupid”, “it won’t work”, “people left to their own devices will do nothing but rape, pillage and plunder”. How ‘bad’ can Libertarianism be in comparison to the spectacular and abysmal failure that our crony capitalistic system has proven to be? I can’t imagine anyone–aside from the politically connected…and Clovers–who would say things are just freaking peachy.

        Of course, waving a magic wand and immediately becoming a Libertarian/NAP-based society over night would be catastrophic. The current version of homo sapiens americanus is, in my humble opinion, rapidly breeding out its ability for independent/critical thinking and accountability (personal, or as a society). It is far less complicated and upsetting to relegate ones’ self to mindlessly follow the latest season of The 18 (or is it 19 now?) Dancing Stars of Honey Boo-Boo Voice Idol and submit to some ass-hat in DC, than to accept responsibility for one’s own path in life (dare I say…pursuit of happiness?) and reject the idea of utilizing force (or the threat thereof) wielded by a third party to achieve a (Clover) desired outcome. The former has produced uniformly disastrous results and innumerable unintended consequences (perhaps unintended…) and the thought of the latter makes a Clover’s tummy feel all oogy…so why not status quo?

        Yes, Clovers of the world, we probably should just stop considering that there might be a better way and fall in lockstep with the Clovers and various other breeds of Sheeple. Would be far less traumatic for y’all to have unanimity than to hear voices of dissent, wouldn’t it?

        • Hi Mike,

          I think Clover – aka “Joliet Jake” – has decided to crawl back under his rock. I finally had enough and called him out, publicly. Got sick of his illiterate, dishonest rabbit pelleting of this site. The little wurm won’t even use his real name. I gave him my home address and invited him to come visit me and try to make me do what he thinks he I ought to do himself, rather than stand behind the skirts of his momma (the government).

          Haven’t heard a peep out of him since.

            • I love the Blues Brothers movie. I was in kindergarten when the producers came to town to make it. One of my friends actually appears in the movie, as one of the dancing kids by Ray’s music shop. Before that neighborhood went to h*ll the folks actually shopped in that mall (it had already gone out of business before the movie, even though it was only ten years old). Thanks to the morons running that town, that mall stood abandoned for nearly thirty years before the ruins were finally razed.

  13. The TIME cover on the left (global cooling) is a fake. Just thought you should know. Otherwise, the article is spot on. One of the best I’ve read and I’ll be passing it on.

  14. Great article! I especially appreciate this line: “….if “climate change” were less about agenda-driven politics (create the sense of a looming crisis to browbeat the public into accepting more taxes and a reduction in their – but never the elites – standard of living)…”. It’s a perfect description of everything the government does…..always attempting to create the sense of a looming crisis to browbeat the public into accepting more taxes!

  15. Eric, you wrote, “… in excess of 31,000 actual scientists … have openly questioned the scientific validity of the IPCC report…”

    A point of correction: It is not an excess of 31,000 scientist who signed the Global Warming Petition Project. It was an excess of 31,000 AMERICAN scientist who signed (http://www.petitionproject.org/). God only knows how many other scientist throughout the world are skeptical of the anthropogenic climate change. One area of skepticism from non-USA source is the 2007 BBC production called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4). If you have an hour to spare, I highly recommend you watch this.

  16. Niel Degrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist. Not a climatologist. Has some cool ties.
    Bill Nye The Science Guy was a mechanical engineer turned TV clown. Not a climatologist. Believes solar panels can provide all the power the world will ever need.
    Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist teaching at City College of NY (ranked 177 in the Forbes list of top US colleges). Also not a climatologist (and vehemently anti-nuke).

    • Celebrity intellectuals is what I call them. Their job is to tell us what to believe that suits the system which makes them wealthy. They are a part of the modern priest class.

    • The late Reid Bryson, widely regarded as the father of the modern science of climatology, had this to say about man-made global warming: “Global Warming is a Bunch of Hooey.”

      https://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/global-warming-is-a-bunch-of-hooey-legendary-professor-of-scientific-climatology/

      For some reason the global warming/climate change hucksters don’t want to reference the opinion of the man who actually founded the scientific discipline they have hijacked.

    • Neil Degrasse Tyson is a TV entertainer not an astrophysicist. He was given the title but that doesn’t mean he understand astrophysics.

    • I used to look up to Tyson, but after he started fawning over Gorebull Warbling, I lost all respect. I surprisingly found even further respect to lose for him when I found out his “good friend” was Bill Nye The Soothsayer Guy.

      Same happened when Michio Kookoo started on the Gorebull gravy train. Since then he’s had his fugly mug in just about every science and astronomy show giving some bullshit opinion, destroying them for me.

      • Hi Rev,

        Me also.

        I liked Tyson’s (and Michio’s) conversational way of discussing astronomy and physics. Then I encountered their “climate change” shilling and lost respect for them, as you have.

        One clue that something’s rotten is the demagogic language. They denounce people who question as “deniers.” Mark that. You’re not allowed to question.

        This is religion (secular, granted, but nonetheless).

      • If they don’t go along they don’t have careers any more.
        That’s how you get scientists on board in era where science is government funded. Of course we are brought up to believe government funding is pure of motivation and bias and most idiots believe that.

  17. Great article but for one small comment, Al Gore doesn’t “buy” into global…sorry climate change, he’s on the sell side.

    • Yes, indeed! Algore made big bucks from the climate change hoax. He had significant interest/investments in green/alt. energy/environmentalism companies that got a boatload of government money when the global warming scare got big.

  18. We all know that we stopped calling it “global warming” because we still get cold snaps and blizzards. A much less-discussed reason why it’s no longer called “global warming” is that the very word “global” means that it’s a WORLD-WIDE problem that EVERYONE is responsible in some way for causing (and solving). That includes China, where every week, a coal-fired power plant large enough to power the city of Dallas comes on line. It includes India, which is set to become the world’s most populous country. It includes Africa, which is about to hit the 1 billion population mark any day now. It includes the Middle East, which has yet to diversify its economy away from oil. It includes Russia, which is home to some of the most polluted areas of the world, and where the Aral Sea, which was once the world’s largest inland body of salt water, is now a puddle, thanks to the ill-advised attempt to grow cotton in Central Asia.

    But it’s middle-class Americans who must take electric buses to work, subsist on beans and rice, and live in stack-a-prole urban hives, as you once put it.

    I’m not really convinced that “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever it’s called is a crisis because the people who tell us it’s a crisis sure aren’t acting like it’s a crisis.

    • Obama made a ‘deal’ with China’s government on CO2. China would continue to increase their CO2 emissions for many years to come and then think about leveling off. Obama would immediately cut US CO2 emissions.

      Because a factory in China is good and a factory in the USA is bad. Never mind that a factory in the USA is many orders of magnitude better for the environment. I think the underlying political agenda is obvious.

    • “We all know that we stopped calling it “global warming” because we still get cold snaps and blizzards.”
      No, it’s more than that. Even their jiggered temp figures show NO warming since about 1997.
      And of course ‘Climate Change’ is a tautology, because that’s what climates do, w/or w/o the influence of man.

      • How do they explain the climate changes of Mars or Io…? Or Venus?

        🙂

        These people are NOT smart. Stop giving them that sort of credit.
        When they want to do something to restrict us, “for the greater good,” the appropriate reaction at this point is to flip ’em the bird, and ignore them.
        If they pursue it further, beat them to death (should be very satisfying.)

        Eventually, it will come to that anyway. They’ll be the ones doing the beating, though. And they’ll use the cop’s hands to achieve it.
        Authoritarians are ALWAYS this way, and SHOULD be treated pre-emptively as a result. (Like dumping round-up on the field when you plant it… Keeps the weeds from growing…)

        • Jean – I know, I know. Every time I find myself replying to a post by Clover or one of her ilk, I say “Never again.” And then find myself doing it again.
          I understand that Eric lets her in for ‘educational’ purposes. But I’m going to make a sincere effort not to waste my time (and intellect) on her again – even if she deliberately goads me.

        • Jean,

          Rather than use Roundup as an analogical mechanism (because it’s some nasty shit that has horrible effects for actual productive members of the human race), why not use the Pill? Perhaps being a “public servant” should require sterilization and a brain pith ( though the latter is probably redundant). My proposition has always been that there should be a referendum held to make politicians and bureaucrats and other vermin in the “public sector” legal game animals, complete with a bounty to be paid in direct relationship to the amount of harm to the cause of individual liberty that the target can cause. So, for example, whacking a high level politician would result in a substantial payout in physical gold, while whacking a DMV turd might result in a heartfelt hurrah. As always, OALA, EHOATAS and YMMV.

          GC

    • Speaking of Dallas, I heard today Texas had set new records of electricity usage. It stands to reason though. We’re having one hell of a heat wave and there are people(I see them all the time)moving to Texas(and this week I saw a plethora of people moving with less than moving vans, just cars and pickups piled high with ridiculously overloaded trailers, lots of stock trailer movings of which I’ve done a bunch myself) at a prodigious rate. Of course, they gave the same old warnings about limiting usage in peak hours……as if you could and survive. A great deal of this usage is by oil companies that are still building infrastructure…….and I’m sure of it since I had an easy 9 hour day today doing just such.

      Nevertheless, they keep on with admonishing regular folk to cut back while big biz and politicians and bureaucrats increase their usage at a prodigious rate. And people in this state are still dying of heat prostration in incarceration at an unheard of rate due to no a/c in these facilities and we have the largest incarcerated amount of people in the world. I don’t know why Texans are such BAD people.

  19. I thought I’d read somewhere that the Pontiff traded in the closed Mercedes popemobile for a custom open-air Hyundai!

    Nevertheless it still holds that the purveyors of the man-made global-warming scam always exempt themselves from any lifestyle changes that they expect others to adopt. The Warmists themselves feel free to jet around the globe for endless meetings with their fellow elites, parade around in fleets of limos and SUVs, and live in multiple large homes that are kept toasty warm in the winter and cool and dry in the summer.

    Conservation and its attendant limitations are for the little people.

    • I just heard in the news today that India population will become larger than in China in just a few years. They said the population of the world will be well over 9 billion people by then. That is billion with a B. There are also hundreds of millions of cars and trucks on paved roadways. If that does not affect our planet in any way I would kind of be surprised. Anyone using logic would agree but since when does a libertarian use logic?Clover

        • No Eric I will not be tuning in my car. My car does get 3 times the gas mileage and a small fraction the pollution that my first car got though. Thanks to the government right? You want to live in the smog of the largest and dirtiest city.Clover

            • No Eric. My first car was built in the mid 60s. You know, one of the classic cars that you so loved and wish we still had. The ones in that classic era got between 9 and 12 miles per gallon.Clover

              • Actually, Clover, some cars got “between 9 and 12 miles per gallon.” Others did much better (e.g., VW Beetle, which was capable of 30).

                Just like today.

              • Clover, well it’s clear why you need government. You were just too stupid to pick one of the many very fuel efficient models. A 1960 Ford Falcon with the small inline six gives modern economy cars competition in the mpg department.

                Such economy cars go back to the 1930s and further. It’s called the market Clover and there has always been a market for cars that use less fuel if the price is right.

                Obviously you lacked the self control to pick a fuel sipping car so you need the government to take away the other choices so you don’t make that error. Or is it that you don’t want other people driving anything but such fuel sipping cars? In either case it’s you that’s the problem and government granted you nothing. It just pretended to so you remain devoted to it.

          • No one has any idea how high mileage would be or how low emissions would be if the gunvermin had not mandated the current levels.

            • But we do know that technology drives forward due to competition and demand. Look what has happened with computers in the last few decades, all without gunvermin mandates.

              It is quite likely that emissions, efficiency, and crash safety would have ultimately improved regardless due to normal technological progress – especially if customers demanded it.

              • Jason Flinders early computers were government owned. You are an idiot. Are you one of those that feel we should not have government taxes and government controlled roads? That is when the stupidity really rules. Eric does not want taxes for roads. He just wants roads to happen and be free. Are you one of those that believes the same?Clover

                • Who is “we,” Clover?

                  What gives you – what gives anyone – the right to speak for others? Much less dictate to them?

                  Your reflexive use of “we” is revealing. It means you – telling us – what “we” are going to do.

                  You’re a thug.

                  Much as you may find me personally obnoxious, dislike my views, I would never force them on you. I want you to be free to live your life as you see fit, interact with and do business with those you wish to interact and do business with (or not)… buy only the things you want. Not be told what you “need” – and compelled to pay for it.

                  Your money is yours. I have no moral claim to a penny of it.

                  And you have no moral claim to a penny of mine.

                  The difference between us is that I am willing – eager – to practice live and let live; to let you go your way – so long as you’re not causing me a tangible harm.

                  But you…?

                  You writhe with an almost sexual urge to control others; to decide for them. To take their things. Direct their lives. Punish them because you do not like what they’re doing.

                  What a hideous, loathsome, cretinous thing you are.

                • Clover, that’s a stretch. Early integrated circuits were used in consumer goods like calculators and watches before they were used in computers. The adaptation of the microprocessor as a stand-alone computing device was 100% from the hobbyist culture that grew out of the computer clubs that were begging for idle time on the mainframes of the day.

                • I can’t speak for Eric, although I expect he would agree w/me. I’m not expecting ‘free roads’ to magically appear. I’m willing to pay for roads I use. But why should I pay for roads I don’t want to use?
                  Also, I am not in favor of building roads on property condemned by eminent domain. If you ever had property seized, you might sing a different tune as well.
                  I guess you’re in love w/DARPA too.
                  Why, if it weren’t for NASA, we may never have heard of Tang. What a loss that would have been.

                  • I was sorta amazed they’d name a drink after a body part but that’s NASA for you. They probably don’t know where the “tang” is.

                • The government makes the sun rise in the morning for you, Clover?

                  How many thousands of years go by and the system humans live under is fundamentally the same. The dressings have changed but the core system is the same.

                  When someone like you Clover makes a ‘what about the roads?’ argument I don’t get into complexities of libertarian principle and theory applied to roads I simply say that it would be a very good thing if we just had the board of road managers. The more local the better. These boards would be like a condo board. They wouldn’t have any power of legal violence like government. They would just get the roads done and collect user fees to those ends. That’s it. But your kind couldn’t ever tolerate that sort of simple system that preserves our liberty.

                  As to computers, what we use today is the result of hobbyist machines, IBM, and workstations for industry. Government computers are an entirely different line of development.

                  As to pollution do you know why it got so bad Clover? Of course not. You’re not told that part of the story. See way back when people realized what was coming out of various industrial processes probably wasn’t good. Under libertarian principles of property rights such pollution should be contained on one’s own property. Your government however decided the victims of pollution had to prove harm from it. This took decades to do. Once it was accomplished the people were angry. So government decided that it would not do away of pollution but set limits and issue grants of pollution. That is those with a special relationship with government get to pollute.

                  Near me there is this giant lake from which comes the drinking water for millions and millions of people. Government grants certain corporations the rights to pollute it. It even increased the amount for a particular refinery. Now why should a refinery be dumping its waste into a lake in the 21st century at all? Because it’s cheap and they have influence, that’s why. That’s your system in a nutshell Clover. Once your government has enough power over us and we are impoverished the skies will darken here again as they are in China where cronyism allows so many to pollute at will.

                  • Thanks for your stupidity Brent. It just never ends. As far as your ” board of road managers” goes, it fits every definition of what the government is and does. Thank you for nothing Brent except for following up with how stupid you really are.Clover

                    • Actually, Clover, Brent’s “board of road managers” differs in one critical – defining – way. It does not involve coercion.

                    • Thanks very much for that Eric. So if you do not pay the “board of road managers” money for driving on roads do you have to stop driving on those roads or are you planning on stealing from others and drive on them for free?Clover

                    • Clover, both Brent and I have repeatedly stated we advocate voluntary, non-coercive human interaction. With regard to roads, they’d be (in a Libertarian society) fee for use. Meaning, if you wished to use them, then you’d pay for them. And if not, not.

                      The system that exists is actually to some extent in accordance with this ideal. You pay motor fuels taxes and these taxes are used to fund the roads. No one forces you to buy fuel or a car.

                      But, the problem is that not all the motor fuels taxes collected go to maintain and build roads. Much is diverted to other things – things many of us would not freely pay for. There is also the issue of eminent domain – the polite legalese for stealing people’s land.

                      Again, Clover, you are a person who believes in violence. Who thinks your views should be imposed by force when others would rather just go their own way and choose some other option.

                      In other words, you’re a thug.

                      Call me whatever you like. I may be offensive; my opinions may strike you as obnoxious. But note: I never advocate that violence be done to you or any other person to force you to do as I wish, to “help” fund things I favor but which you may not.

                      I sleep well at night; I can look at myself in the mirror.

                      Can you, Clover?

                    • Clover,

                      Unlike you, I don’t take what’s not mine – nor demand that others give me what’s rightly theirs.

                    • So Clover then we can start dismantling government and shrinking it down?

                      Under a board of managers model road fees and usage would be on a voluntary contract basis and usage fees depending on the type of road. Ever live in a condo Clover? Same basic model. By buying a property you enter into a voluntary contract for upkeep of the road network or even specifically the road in front of it. Fuel taxes and tolls can do the rest.

                      It’s very simple to have a libertarian public road system. Far less complex than most people imagine. Most of the infrastructure is already done. Property taxes, fuel taxes, and tolls. We already know it works, a few tweaks and removal of the violence we are back to liberty based voluntary system.

                      This system could be pushed further where it is a private road system where each part of the system is owned by the property owners in shares, just like the common elements of a condo building or complex. A general pact that all the local systems belonged to would allow reciprocity. Much like what is done on the state level today. It’s all very doable because roads in the USA really aren’t that far away from the libertarian roots of the country. It’s a matter of mindset and not exploiting the numerous smaller road users for special interests on and off the roads.

                    • So Eric everything that you say you are against would make it impossible to live where you now live. There is a pipeline going in a few miles from here. If it carries gasoline or whatever and you say that they can not go through where they are going and that is what carries your fuel then your car stops forever. Libertarians think at such a simple level that they ignore details. Details are what makes everything in our society work. In reality you would have to go back 300 years to get to the society and the small fraction of population that would fit a libertarian like you. You can not have a country of hundreds of millions of people that will work with your simplistic statements.Clover

                      You say that roads should be pay as you go. Explain how those payments would be made and who would form this ” board of road managers” and what happens when you disagree with them? Oh, those would be details wouldn’t they? Something beyond a Libertarian’s comprehension.

                    • Clover,

                      In the first place, you have no idea whether it would be impossible. That is your opinion. Your guess. We don’t know, because it’s not been tried. Your premise is always that only coercion and violence make human progress possible. That things would never get done- or not done as well – if guns weren’t held to people’s heads.

                      Has it occurred to you that if something is a good idea (as opposed to just an idea that you think is good) people generally do not have to be forced to see that it is a good idea? That if people like/want something – that is, if it’s of value to them – they do not have to be forced to buy it or support it?

                      But ultimately, Clover, this is a moral – not utilitarian question. Your position is that the “greater good” (as defined by you, as “greater goods” are always defined) entitles you to advocate, support and commit acts that would be criminal in any other context. Assault, theft, kidnapping – even murder.

                      You are of the “can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” school of thought. And while I concede that this approach can indeed build pyramids and Autobahns and shopping malls galore, if these things involve the abuse of even a single innocent human being, then they are based on a moral outrage. It is no different than me coming to your home and threatening to beat the shit out of you unless you hand over money to “help” maintain EPautos – which I consider to be a “greater good.”

                      But of course, I’d never do that – because unlike you, I am not a violent cretin who assaults people or threatens to if they don’t do as I like.

                    • Yes Eric I believe that if people have the facts of a very good idea that it is very possible to happen. Bring up your good idea. I have not head one yet. You keep bringing up violence by our government. No one that I have ever known has had violence placed upon them by our governments so tell me why I could care about violence? If you take a swing at someone then I could care less if they swing back at you Eric.
                      You say your society would work. Name one society like yours that has worked in the past 1000 years? If you want to have drastic changes on how an organization of 100s of millions of people works then I would hope that you spent more than 5 minutes on the details. I surely have seen nothing from you.

                    • Clover,

                      My idea is that people refrain from violence; that they interact with one another peacefully – or not at all.

                      Yes, I keep bringing up “violence by government.” Your retort is vacuous beyond words. Yes, if you obey, it is likely they will not need to use violence. But the threat is there, always – and the actuality will be there, too, the moment you decline to obey.

                      Why is it that you studiously avoid dealing with this fact, Clover?

                      At least come out of the closet and admit you believe that violence is ok when a “majority” (or those who claim to represent one) decide it is – for the “greater good” – as decided on by them.

                    • Eric, in the USA the modern road system started out with things like the good roads movement, the lincoln highway association, and so forth.

                      Like everything else modern roads are something the government took over, not something they created. They essentially pushed the road associations out and took control and credit. Just like everything else.

                    • Clover, to your query (still in the queue) about libertarians working out a system there has been much written about it. You should go read it if you’re interested.

                      Furthermore lesser traveled roads are smaller and not built to the same standards as more traveled roads under the present government system. So your demand of redistribution is nonsense. Also your claim of dirt roads and eventually no roads in much of the country is what agenda 21 calls for. Again that’s a feature of your government system. And lastly redistribution means things like the bridge to nowhere. Why should those of us who live in big metro areas because of the infrastructure millions of people can create be subsidizing infrastructure to make it easier for people out in the sticks? It’s nicer out there but the drawback is not as much infrastructure. If it gets subsidized and built why stay in the crowded areas? Like every other form of socialism it wrecks things. More people go into the wagon and fewer pull. Also I think most people in rural areas don’t want to attract people to live there. This is best done by not building the support systems.

                    • Brent the fact is without those smaller roads you would not eat. Tell me how you plan to eat with nothing coming into your city of millions? It is another good example of your not thinking out the details. Details are the enemy of libertarians. It is beyond my comprehension that someone like you can say how great things would be without even thinking how you are going to eat in your new society. Brent if you say there are details written about how your society would work then provide your proof that it exists.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      More utilitarian (rather than moral) arguments (if they can be called such) that (per usual) assume as givens things that by no means are necessarily so (e.g., that “millions would not eat without government coercion”).

                      But – again – you evade the moral issue.

                      The rightness (as you see it) or the wrongness (as I see it) of using violence to achieve your “greater good” – as defined by you.

                    • Clover,

                      Did people living out in the country and so on manage to eat during the 18th and 19th century? Before there were government roads?

                      How is it that the United States grew exponentially (literally) during the 18th and 19th century, with people spreading out to farthest reaches of the territories… while government was small …and yet people managed to eat? Commerce flourished. The nation was largely self-sufficient.

                      All before your totemic object of veneration – the government – was more than a minor irritant.

                      Perhaps you can explain why it is that as government has become an all-encompassing octopus that involves itself in literally everything, the nation has slowed down in terms of growth and prosperity?

                      If government is so all-beneficent, why is that, Clover?

                      No doubt, your pockets are being lined by government – I suspect you’re a corn-fueled hog-trougher – which accounts for your rabid defense of your sugar daddy.

                      But the rest of us would rather be left alone – and not constantly threatened with assault by proxy thugs sent out to perform the thuggery you yourself are too much of a loathsome coward to attempt on your own.

                      Seriously, Clover. Why don’t you come to my house sometime? Try and force me to “help” you (or some project you deem worthy) financially. Try to make me buckle my seatbelt for “safety.”

                      I’m at 721 Hummingbird Lane SE in Copper Hill, VA. I’ll give you directions.

                      I’ll give you the one thing your kind never gives my kind: a fair fight. One on one.

                      No?

                      Coward. The worst sort. One who stands behind the skirts of others, who do his dirty work for him.

                      If you had any moral compass at all, you’d question why you feel (I assume) reluctance to personally threaten your neighbors (or anyone) with assault to get what you want them to do. Why you feel bound to leave them alone and in peace.

                      Yet when you can vote for such thuggery to be done on your behalf by proxies, then you’re all in.

                      You might stop to consider that, Clover.

                    • Clover, are you telling me Chicago had nobody bringing food to it for sale before the governments in the USA started taking over all the roads in 1925?

                      Amazing. It’s a wonder Al Capone didn’t starve to death. Must have been all that booze he brought in.

                      The reality is you didn’t know the history let alone how recent the complete government take over was.

                    • Well, I got back and am about to become unconscious for several hours I hope(well, not several)after building roads for private individuals and big corporations today. It was fun. Seriously, it is sorta fun and you can see bit by bit what you’ve built. It’s satisfying, maybe similar to Folger’s Coffee(didn’t they claim satisfying?)to watch something become a road and all the parts thereof.

                      I can go all over the country and say “See, I built that road” and there’s a sign that says “No Trespassing” often or something similar.
                      I can even step on a state owned road and say the same. That was my first experience finding out the state coffers are as deep as need be. I got paid for days I didn’t work….and that company was just the lowest bidder.

                      Well, I”m gonna RUNNOFT. Adios muchachos!

                    • So Brent you are saying that there were no government roads before 1925? Who would hire someone as stupid as you? There has been government roads since our country was formed. It is impossible to debate your pure stupidity.Clover

                    • Clover’s government trolling center has moved to just outside Joliet, IL.

                      I guess they’re using “privatized” cons to troll for 10 cents a post!

                    • No, Clover… Brent was pointing out (accurately) that there were numerous private roads. It is your non sequitur that there “no government roads before 1925.” Brent never claimed that – yet you argue as if he had.

                      It’s of a piece with your deriding Libertarians for “wanting to do whatever the hell they want” when you know perfectly well (because it’s been explained to you, repeatedly) that in fact Libertarians accept – as a binding moral (not merely legal) – standard that they have an obligation not to harm others by their actions and that in the event they do, they accept responsibility.

                      However, they don’t accept being controlled – having violence done them or threatened – merely because some Clover feels a hypothesized “someone” might be harmed. Or because someone else has caused a harm.

                      It is a very important distinction.

                      One you constantly choose to ignore.

                    • Clover, is it that you don’t know how to read or that you’re a despicable person who intentionally pretends that something different was written?

                    • Morning, Brent!

                      Clover’s method (no news to you) is to never directly address the point at issue but to deflect and misdirect by unloading a non sequitur and then warbling about that.

                      So, for instance, he’ll write that “Libertarians want to do whatever the hell they want” … leaving out the critical qualifier, provided they cause no harm to others. He knows perfectly well that Libertarians do not “want to do whatever the hell they want.” That they accept as a moral standard – as a limit on their freedom of action – that they may not cause harm to others by their actions.

                      Clover is either incredibly dense – or deliberately dishonest.

                      My impression is that he’s a combination of both.

                      We’re dealing with a low-grade (but persistent) bully of low-average intelligence.

                      PS: I did a little rooting around. Clover’s IP address emanates from Illinois. Not far from Joliet. I suspect he may be an “employee” of the prison industry… with a lot of time on his (her?) hands!

                    • I don’t think Clover is in Illinois unless it recently moved. it’s probably using a proxy or Tor browser or some other multiple hop device or was previously. I was pretty good at tracing people out back in the day but the options to hide are so much better and varied today. Also plug and play.

                  • So brent you are blaming our government for not enforcing Libertarian ideals? Really? According to you there should be no government and individuals always make the correct decisions for the good of others. Just like your poor driving.Clover

                    • Clover, your statement, “No one that I have ever known has had violence placed upon them by our government…” is beyond ridiculous. The US government has killed at least six million humans (mostly poor, brown humans) since the end of WW11. At leasts three million is southeast Asia and another million in the mid-east. Government is violence and the threat of violence. The thousands of pages of laws, rules, regulations, and taxes are all backed up by violence including death. Government policy is Obey, Be Beaten, and/or Die.

                  • CloverBrent if you say that non government roads would be good and very possible then there has to be at least one of your libertarian friends that has an idea how it should be done. I doubt that you would OK such a thing by using GPS etc to track the miles your car is traveling. No, that would be against libertarian freedoms. If you have a pay as you go system I believe that GPS is the only solution. Then how do you distribute the income across the nation? Are you saying that lower use roads would have to be closed because there is not enough money for them because your road system is based on a penny a mile of use or whatever and would be closed even though the road goes past your house.

                • Clover, your level of ignorance and stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

                  Are you even aware that the world’s first business computer was built by a British catering firm? I thought not.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_%28computer%29

                  You once again “think” that if your favorite criminal enterprise doesn’t do it, it won’t get done at all. What a maroon.

                  • Jason Flinders if you were not so stupid you would know that the military was using computers in the 30s and 40s. The last I knew the military is a part of our government. How stupid can YOU be?Clover

                    • You continue to prove yourself a low-grade moron. There were no computers for the military to use in the 1930s. (At least not electronic stored-program computers as we know them.)

                      You’re really making this much too easy.

                    • Jason Flinders you had to have your first computer systems developed and working before Windows 10 could have been created. Computers started long before the microprocessor was created.Clover

                    • Clover — “Government” does not build computers or anything else. Evertyhing is built by individual human beings and groups of individuals. The most productive and inventive humans are not employed by governments or motivated by them. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Tom Edison, etc. were not government employees. Einstein was a government bureaurat but developed his science on his own time. The internet would be much better without any government interference. For example, it would be much more secure from government spying. Government hate the internet because it exposes their crimes. Bureaurats and clovers like Hillary say that the internet needs “gate keepers”.

                    • Clover, you ignorant slut.

                      As usual your latest comment makes no sense. I pointed you specifically to the genesis of the world’s first business computer, funded and built not by a government entity but by a catering company in the 1940s, and you still sound like a broken record.

                      Since you bring up Windows, before Windows 10 (or 8.x or 7 etc.) could be created, Windows NT had to be created, and before Windows NT, VMS had to be created. (Hint: VMS was created by a private concern, and largely by a single gifted software engineer and his team who went on to create Windows NT and its successors for Microsoft.) Government was not involved, aside possibly to strongarm Microsoft into installing backdoors and spying capabilities.

                      But of course you are way too ignorant to know that little bit of computer history. You really don’t know anything at all about how this technology was developed. Here are a few clues:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware

                      You will that find precious few politicians and/or bureaucrats were involved.

                      Oh, and you might want to take a look at what your beloved criminal enterprise in England did to Alan Turing, one of the true pioneers.

                    • OK rick237. So you say that government does nothing because individuals are who do the work. OK. That means we do not have a government because a term does nothing. It is people that represent us that doe the work.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      You speak in euphemisms.

                      I’ve given no one proxy power to speak in my name – much less order me about and take my money.

                      Perhaps you have. But your abdication of responsibility for yourself is not binding on me.

                      Or anyone else.

                      Again, we get back to the core moral issue: Your belief that it’s acceptable to assault people or threaten them with assault in order to compel them to do as you think they ought to do and to provide funds for the things you believe they ought to be compelled to “contribute” to.

                      Of course, you’d never do the actual assaulting yourself. That would take some guts, which you (like all your kind) lack.

                      Instead, you vote. Get your “representative” to do your dirty work for you.

                      You’re not even a vole.

            • Or if gunvermint hadn’t mandated the dilution of our gasoline with corn liquor (a.k.a. ethynol), which works against the very same fuel efficiency that said gunvermint supposedly demands.

              • Gunvermin often finds its various goals in conflict w/each other. Then it’s time to get out the measuring tape to see which takes priority.
                If they really believed in global warming – er, anthropogenic climate change – rather than just controlling us, fuel efficiency would place higher on the food chain.

                • There are much better uses for shine than burning it in IC engines. Of course it worked well for the ‘runners’ for that purpose, at 100% of course, not diluted with gasoline.

            • Government pushes mileage mandates on one side, and then makes those targets hard to hit by making cars bulked up for “safety”. Guess that leaves mass transit as the only long term option for us proles.

        • eric, if anything is going to affect the ecological balance enough to do harm it has to be the recycled cars, aka, constantly throwing them away and making new ones. The rare metals alone are staggering……and then there’s the “hybrid” cars and their even greater, more conspicuous consumption of even rarer metals. The US military alone is probably the single largest waster of everything, every damned thing on earth, including those digital digit they call money and those cloverific humans they call our protectors. For whatever reason, they’ve been back on their same pre-war flights over us this past week of the B1B sort and the low C-130 sorties making the house rattle.

      • So you think you are going to control the earth’s climate via your Lord and Saviour, the State? Probably you do. Stupid is as stupid does. Ignore that falsified data! The sky is falling!

        You are more than welcome to off yourself in order to save Brother Earth while the “authorities” that you worship continue to live lavish lifestyles and demand sacrifice from the proles.

        Clovers are so danged stupid how do they even remember to breathe?

        • Jason Flinders you call me stupid? 40 years or more ago many of our largest cities had air you could not even see through on certain days. The population has doubled in many of those cities. You tell me what it would be like if you was in charge? You would have done nothing. You tell me which is better?Clover

          • Yes, you are quite obviously a low-grade moron as evidenced by your many inane comments on this site. In most cases you display an inability to even follow a rational thought process.

            You assume that nothing will change for the better and that technology will not move forward without the intervention of a violent, murderous, psychopathic criminal enterprise (the State). Ludicrous.

        • Jason Flinders our government helped to clean the highly polluted air. Do you want that back? Clover

          Catalytic converters were first widely introduced in American production cars in 1975 due to EPA regulations on toxic emissions reductions. The United States Clean Air Act required a 75% decrease in emissions in all new model vehicles after 1975, a decrease to be carried out with the use of catalytic converters. Without catalytic converters, vehicles release hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide. These gases are the largest source of ground level ozone, which causes smog and is harmful to plant life. Catalytic converters can also be found in generators, buses, trucks, and trains—almost everything with an internal combustion engine has a form of catalytic converter attached to its exhaust system.

          Editor’s Observation: The above nearly lucid text was, obviously, not composed by Clover. Who is attempting to pass it off as his own work.

          • As mentioned in another response, you continue in the asinine assumption that there would have been no progress in the absence of your favorite murderous thugs.

            Since you love the EPA so much, go look up the hatchet job the agency did early on against DDT and the resulting massive deaths from malaria in 3rd-world countries that took the goons at their word. (Hey, as Stalin used to say, those people are just statistics, right?)

              • Much like the Constitution before it, “Silent Spring” was directed to the masses, and returned an emotional outburst rather than actual value or reasoned discussion.

                The Mob Rules.

                Always true, the mob has an IQ lower than the dumbest member.

            • Jason Flinders yes without the EPA and other organizations, millions of people and companies would be dumping pollution in our air and water than what we have today. It is a proven fact,. Just ask 90 percent of the libertarians here if they would have spent a single cent of their money towards clean air. They would say it is their right to decide. No one is going to tell them what is good for everyone. I would bet that you would be one of them. Eric would be at the top of the list.Clover

              • Clover,

                You’ll never respond like a man to a direct question with a direct answer. You’re a smarmy little coward who advocates violence but refuses to openly admit it – much less attempt to visit it on your victims yourself.

                I’d respect you more if you could at least come out of the closet and admit what you are – what you believe in.

                But you’re too much of a cringing little twerp to even use your real name here.

                Pathetic.

                • Eric what I believe is that libertarians are stupid dumbass idiots. You asked. Just a simple example is you believe in little to no military. You believe that guns should be free to carry and from what I have read you believe in open borders and free immigration. What that ends up being is that any thirds world country with an atomic bomb is free to use it here. Any terrorist is free to have at it. You say if you are nice to them then they will be nice to you. The stupidity of that is that hundreds of thousands of those nice guys as you call them want you dead because you do not believe in their religion. What more do you want Eric?Clover

                  • Clover,

                    We’re “stupid dumbass idiots” who speak and write in complete, coherent sentences. Who have moral principles we articulate and defend.

                    You, on the other hand, are functionally illiterate and incapable of putting forward a coherent, principled argument. For you, everything is subjective, situational, arbitrary and largely based on your feelings. You deliberately misrepresent the clearly stated views of others, deride them for advocating or defending things they never advocated or defended and then call them “stupid dumbass idiots.”

                    In addition, you’re a coward who’s afraid to even use his (her?) real name when attacking people online – very much of a piece with using others as proxies to do violence on your behalf.

                    I’ve already asked you several times, Clover: Why don’t you personally go around trying to impose your views – your feelings – on others? Why not walk over to your next door neighbor’s house and personally demand they “help” finance whatever project or greater good you believe in?

                    No?

                    What are you afraid of, Clover?

                    Those awful, “selfish” people might try to defend themselves?

                    Meanwhile, a “stupid dumbass idiot” like me would do no more than attempt to persuade my neighbor that a project was worth supporting, leaving the decision entirely up to them. If they agree with me that it’s a good thing, and wish to provide support, they are free to do so.

                    And just as free to say no.

                    Which I – as a moral (peaceful, non-aggressive) man am morally bound to respect.

                    You, on the other hand, are not a moral man (or woman).

                    You cannot abide others saying no.

                    You insist.

                    That’s the difference between us, Clover. That – and the ability to speak and write in complete sentences.

                  • Clover, you’ve no fucken idea what you’re on about. Libertarians like their country and borders defended from the inside against invasion, but don’t want to be attacked by their own grabbermint and security forces from within as is happening now.

                    Once again you lie about everything, consciously and with the direct purpose of disruption to engender contact with others, you lonely wuss.

                    Guns SHOULD be free for everyone to carry if they wish because, in the very few states you have over there where it’s mandatory to be carrying one, there’s almost no crime.

                    Think about that before opening your arse to breathe.

                    • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N I see that libertarian stupidity did not pass by you. Name the country that requires you to carry a gun that is not at war? I am waiting ———— . Libertarians are the biggest liars on our planet.

                      Reading the 10 things most coveted by libertarians states that they want open borders and freedom to travel the world and live where you want to. Are you saying even libertarians can not agree? Really?

                      ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N I am a thousand times more likely to be killed by a libertarian than I am any government of ours. Libertarians are free to drive as dangerously as they like, says everyone here except me. Then you say that libertarians need to carry guns. Why? I have never been shot by someone not carrying a gun. There is zero chance a libertarian is going to shoot me if they do not have a gun in their hand. They are millions of times more likely to shoot me if they are carrying. Any minor disagreement and a libertarian is going to shoot me and you say that our government is dangerous.Clover

                    • Clover writes:

                      “Name the country that requires you to carry a gun that is not at war?”

                      Ok. Switzerland.

                      Every able-bodied male serves in the Swiss militia – and keeps a fully automatic rifle in the home.

                      And last time I checked, the Swiss weren’t at war with anyone – and haven’t been in centuries.

                      Poor ol’ Clover!

                  • The babbling of Clover. Notice how it’s always an incomplete story with Clover and most of the people in the USA. Never knowing the back story always accepting that the government is trying to protect them from monsters. Clover, why doesn’t anyone bother the Swiss? They are rich and free by human standards and nobody bothers them. Why? Nobody bothers the Swedes either, the list of countries nobody bothers that have relative wealth and freedom is quite long. The reason? They don’t go around the world messing in other people’s business or they stopped doing it decades or centuries ago.

                    The american control freaks, people like you that support their control freak brethren that run the government have to go around interfering with other people, trying to dominate people, trying to take advantage of people. Occasionally those other people get angry enough to do something about it. But you won’t find that back story on the evening news or in a presidential speech. They’ll leave you ignorant of it. So then you can jabber on as you do here and be afraid of monsters.

                    • Brent, why don’t you leave? Why do you keep pushing your stupidity? You bring up the swiss? Really? They do have as strict of security as we do. Their population and size is far less than your Illinois. Switzerland is protect on all sides by friendly countries. And you ask why the swiss are not bothered? The stupidity of libertarians did not pass by you either.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      I doubt you’ve ever been to Switzerland, much less know anything about its people or government. A single example will suffice to demonstrate your (as usual) appalling ignorance.

                      “Protect (sic) on all sides by friendly countries.”

                      Really?

                      Switzerland borders Italy and Germany, two powers that were extremely unfriendly toward Switzerland during the late unpleasantness known as WWII. The Warsaw Pact nations of the old Soviet Union (including East Germany and Czechoslovakia) were as close to Switzerland as Canada is to Illinois.

                      The Swiss have not invaded another country or involved themselves in aggressive war in centuries, Clover. They’re not attacked – because they don’t attack others. It’s a peaceful country. Also, it has a diffuse, decentralized form of government that’s much more democratic than the centralized/authoritarian regime that rules this country.

                      You’ve been huffing Rush Limbaugh’s jockstrap for too long. It’s gone to whatever’s left of your head.

                    • Eric why are you so stupid? You are talking about Switzerland back in world war 2. Things change Eric but I guess you never will. Back in world war 2 we bombed Germany and Japan. We are friends now. Eric I compared Switzerland with Illinois. Illinois has not invaded any other country lately. Clover
                      Eric what is you solution of the problems of today? When a large group of people want you dead because you are not their religion and will do anything to kill you then what are we supposed to do? Should we just be nice at take it?

                    • Clover,

                      So I’m “stupid” for noting facts?

                      I referenced both WWII and the Cold War (which only ended in the early ’90s). Both valid references, in any case, in support of the fact that you were in error about Switzerland ( a country I would bet you “a million dollars” I can prove I’m more familiar with than you are) not having to deal with the nearby presence of potentially hostile states.

                      The Swiss have no need for a massive (and aggressive) army. A citizen militia has sufficed for the defensive needs of the Swiss for centuries. The Swiss do not get attacked because they do not attack others. How come no one hates the Swiss, Clover? Why aren’t they attacked for their “freedoms”? (Which they have as much of or even more of than the average American.)

                      On the “enemies of freedom” (as you no doubt regard them):

                      The government of this country has quite literally driven millions of Muslims batshit crazy with hate after decades of war crimes against them.

                      Yes, Clover, war crimes.

                      Under the Geneva Conventions – used to convict and hang Nazi war criminals – the United States government committed a war crime by launching an aggressive war against a state (Iraq) that had not attacked the U.S. This government then murdered (by conservative estimates) at least 100,000 Iraqis and displaced many times that number, savaging the country, including its infrastructure – with incalculable effects on millions of innocent people.

                      The government of the US engages in torture (another war crime) as policy.

                      It bombs and kills civilians, at will.

                      It has been fucking with Iran (and Saudi Arabia) since the 1920s at least, removing popularly elected/legitimate leaders and replacing them with its hand-picked puppets, who then brutalized the people.

                      You, Clover, are morally obtuse, historically ignorant and utterly lacking-in-empathy or conscience.

                    • Clover insults and dodges and then changes the subject. The subject isn’t lock your doors security, the subject is go into other people’s homes and interfere with their affairs.

                      But to an american control freak those are the same thing. It’s not enough to lock your own doors one has to bust down the neighbors’ doors just to be safe. Tell them how to live to make sure they don’t live differently. Always worried about what some one else is doing. Leave people alone Clover. But you can never do that. Not on the web, not on the road, and certainly not with your government.

              • Clover, I see you were educated by the government schools and the media. The real story of pollution in the USA is that when companies started polluting their neighbors sued. Do you really think they just put up with living in the filth quietly? This used to be a much freer country back then. Anyway they sued. Your government’s courts, being a tool of whomever has the most money and influence decided in favor of the polluters. They ruled that it was -legal- to spew whatever they wanted, dump what ever they wanted into the public waters, let leak on to neighboring properties whatever they wanted until a particular substance was proven to cause harm.

                Now there was no knowledge or technology to prove it caused harm back then and the those operating the courts and government knew it. The act of polluting was a violation of property rights, under a libertarian system the plaintiffs would have prevailed, but it’s not a libertarian system so they didn’t.

                Decades past and things get really polluted. Technology and knowledge advances and people can now prove the harm. People are close to revolt over it. That’s when the EPA was created. But the EPA just feels good. It was quickly turned into something that grants pollution privileges to some and becomes a strong arm to shut down others for mere paperwork issues and other nonsense. It also prevents competition.

                If property rights had prevailed early on there would have never been the pollution for the epa to clean up in the first place.

                • Brent name me one libertarian who of his own free will that would pay a single penny of their own money to prevent pollution. There is not a single person here that would. Eric has repeatedly said he would not. Eight… said he pulled the catalytic converter from his vehicle because he said he had that right. Only the liars would say they would prevent pollution. Libertarians have the right to pollute because no one can tell them what is good for society. Ask any libertarian.Clover

                  • Clover,

                    You invariably present your unilateral opinions as facts.

                    Ever wonder why most people don’t strew garbage all over their property? Why most people don’t pour motor oil all over their grass?

                    Why do people take care of their things, Clover?

                    Meanwhile, consider the dilapidated state of most things “public.” Why do you suppose that is, Clover?

                    And: I am giving serious thought to locking you out because of your refusal to ever answer a simple question directly or honestly. And most of all, because of your serial, deliberate misrepresentation of other people’s views.

                    I tire of your rabbit-pelleting of the site.

                    • Eric most people do not dump oil and antifreeze etc because they know it is illegal and I am sure that some of your libertarian friends still do.
                      Eric I have asked you direct questions many times and you never would give a complete answer. I asked such things as how will roads be built and repaired under your system and your answer is that it will just happen. Tell me what kind of an answer that is?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      You’re either exceptionally dull or simply illiterate; unable to comprehend (much use) language precisely.

                      Or, you’re a deliberate liar.

                      Which is it?

                      Please cite (copy/link) any statement of mine arguing that “it will just happen” with regard to roads being built and maintained. None such exist – because I have never made such a statement.

                      This is your statement, attributed to me.

                      I’ve stated – carefully, repeatedly – that roads can (and have been) built and maintained privately and non-coercively. That such a system is morally preferable to a system such as the one that exists, which is based on violence.

                      Can you understand the difference?

                      You and yours are “can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” people. You don’t object to violence and aggression provided it’s for some “greater good” (as defined by you and yours).

                      Libertarians do not believe in violence and aggression. We – as a matter of principle – would never attempt to force you to do (or pay for) anything you couldn’t freely be convinced to do or support.

                      I grant that there might be fewer “greater goods” (again, as defined by you). But there’d be an end to the cycle of people living by violence and aggression as policy, under the color of law.

                    • Why is it Eric that Libertarians supposedly have all the answers but no details? Hey, why not make everyone multimillionaires and that will solve everything. Libertarians can do it. Just make it happen is all you have to say.
                      Eric if you would look up the history on how roads were built and maintained early on in our country you would find that at first the areas where the roads were needed to keep up the roads. They did that by REQUIRING ever family to spend so many hours to help. They found that their solution would not work because everyone would not put out any effort or were not capable. The solution was to tax everyone and pay the capable persons to do the work. Eric that was more than 200 years ago. They figured out the solution to the problem. You have never even recommended a solution. The solution we have today is thousands of times better than what you have not even given details for. Clover
                      Eric you repeatedly bring up violence that is placed on us. I have never met a person in my lifetime where violence is placed upon them by our governments. Has it happened to you? Eric my view is that if you start something by pointing a gun at someone or taking a swing at them then I have no problem with them taking the same amount or more force upon you. That is a libertarian view right? If the police come to arrest you for whatever reason, our government has set up rules where you are not to resist arrest. When arrested you will go to court to decide if you were not wrong. That seems to work very well. That was in place long before you were born. If you do not like it then leave because that is what was set up hundreds of years ago.

                    • Clover,

                      You know why I get your goat? It is because I deal in moral principles rather than subjective/utilitarian opinions. Your kind always wants to debate whether a given thing is “useful” or “worth doing” – which is an argument that cannot be won (certainly not by the freedom advocate) because everyone has a different opinion as to what’s “useful” and “worth doing.”

                      There is no objective standard.

                      I will deal with this at greater length… .

                    • Eric, on a given day I would guess that you use multiple roads and some far more than others. In your system who are you going to pay or is it optional to pay in your system?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      What part of fee for service do you not understand?

                      You keep asking the same questions over and over, as if they’d never been asked – notwithstanding they’ve been answered in detail numerous times already.

                    • Clover, your government is trying to create a pay-by-mile system so obviously it is technologically possible to pay the correct road entity appropriately.

                      On another note, Doug Casey explains your kind well in this talk:

                      “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFAxXCrrVpU”

                    • Eric what part of who and how you are going to pay for the roads that you travel do you not get? You say that you travel a lot of miles each year so are you going to pay more than you do today? I would think so.Clover

                      I would guess that our road systems are worth trillions of dollars. You say the system is bad but you have not given a singe detail on the system that is going to replace it. Eric if I was going to make a huge change in my life and finances I would give it some planning and come up with some details but you want to run a trillion dollar system of roads by the seat of your pants. Name me one thing more stupid than that?

                    • Clover,

                      I’ve already answered this question multiple times. This will be the last time.

                      Roads can be – have been – financed by motor fuels taxes, which are not compulsory. Roads could also be financed by user fees, paid via several potential mechanisms.

                      The point, Clover, is it’s possible to have roads without coercion.

                      That we have an existing road system based on coercion in no way obviates non-coercive alternatives – and the fact these have not been tried in no way means the existing system is the best (or only) system possible.

                      Your position is that (a) government-run systems are the best/only possible systems and (b) aggression is necessary and justified to further this government-run system (i.e., “you’ve got to break some eggs to make an omelette”).

                      Once again: You are a person who advocates aggression to further “worthy goals” – as you define them. if others disagree and ask to be left out of your plans, you (and your kind) will threaten them with violence to coerce their participation/”help” (funding).

                      In other words, you are a thug.

                      But also, a coward. Because you’ve not got the balls to do the coercing yourself. You hide behind the ballot box – and the skirts of your wet nurse (the government) and get proxies to do your bloody work.

                      Disgusting.

                    • Thanks for the link Brent of Doug Casey. He was constantly talking about all of you here. He was talking about sociopaths and sociopathic liars. That fits most everyone here except me. He is stupid person. He is a big buyer of gold and silver. I am sure he liked the 40% or more drop in his holdings. Extremists views fail 99.9% of the time. He is a libertarian for sure. He talked on and on and on giving no details of what his new world would be. Clover
                      I did like him talking about the 80% of the people are mostly good and 20% of the people are not so good and 20% of that 20% are all out bad people. That is 4% of the population. Brown from Missouri fit into that category but libertarians treat him as a hero. He was a thug and overall bad person proven with videos and eye witnesses.

                    • Clover,

                      What is a sociopath? It’s a person who lacks empathy for others; who uses others – who is (typically) aggressive and violent (though some, like you, use mechanisms other than direct violence to obtain what they crave from their victims). Above all, though, there is the urge – the need – to control others.

                      That is what defines a sociopathic personality, Clover.

                      Sound familiar?

                      I (and other Libertarians) want nothing from you except that you respect our right to be left in peace, provided we ourselves are peaceful. We have no desire to control you. We just want you to leave us alone.

                      You, on the other hand, are unwilling to leave others in peace – even if they are peaceful. You will use force or its threat (or endorse the use of force or its threatened use) to compel peaceful people to do what you believe they ought to do (or not do). To compel them to furnish funds for the furtherance of aims you deem to be “worth it.”

                      In other words, Clover, you are a thug.

                      Call me a “stupid idiot” all day long. I would never physically threaten you – unless you first physically threaten me. You are the aggressor, Clover.

                      What does that make you?

                    • Is that the best you can do Trollver?
                      Why don’t you go elect another sociopath? Maybe he can send you or someone you care about off to die in some pointless foreign war?

                      As to your irrelevant tangent nobody who believes in silver and gold lost anything close to 40% because they had been buying it since it was dirt cheap. Also a loss is only measured in terms of federal reserve notes. What about all the people who lost 40% on their homes? Oh never a bad word about them. Never how they were fools for buying a house. But any gyration of precious metals and the fangs come out. One might get the impression that there is something about gold and silver control freaks don’t like.

                    • Brent the best INVESTORS do not touch gold and the few investors that do buy gold make it a small percentage of their holdings. An ounce of gold will be worth an ounce of gold a thousand years from now. There are no dividends on gold. Gold was $850 many decades ago. It is only worth a little more now. Any other investment would be worth thousands. Fear is a big part of being a libertarian. Fear of violence by our government is a big part of libertarian feelings but the only libertarian that has ever personally seen it was the one taking a swing at a cop or taking a shot at one.Clover
                      If you live in fear where you feel the need to carry a gun, need to buy gold and the need to store up 10 years of food in a bunker then I feel sorry for you.

                    • Clover,

                      People buy gold as a hedge against inflation, as a way to store value against the very real threat of a currency collapse. Gold is a tangible/physical asset – like land, only portable and much more fungible.

                      “Investing” (i.e., speculating) is a different thing altogether.

                      As to Libertarians and fear:

                      We do fear being told what we can and cannot do (and how much of our money we’ll be allowed to keep) by arrogant control freaks such as yourself. People who cannot leave others be. Who believe their “greater goods” (defined by them) entitle them to violently compel the obedience of other people and entitle them to steal other people’s money.

                      Simpletons (or the intellectually dishonest) such as yourself claim the (note, not our) government is pacific, does not employ violence.

                      I cannot conceive of a more preposterous statement.

                      Are you truly incapable of comprehending the concept of duress?

                      If you actually do believe that the government isn’t violent, then I almost feel sorry for you. But I simply cannot imagine that anyone’s that blinkered.

                      Even you, Clover.

                    • There aren’t many dividend stocks around Clover and those that do exist don’t pay much, certainly not worth the risk against principle. Also your idea that stocks always go up like the idea that houses always go up is nonsense. Stocks are very dependent on when you got to buy. Now me, most of my working life stocks have been bubble-crash-bubble-crash-bubble. See I couldn’t buy back in 1974 when it made sense to buy. The market in my adult life has been defined by one where the insiders leave 401K and retail investors holding the bag. Real estate hasn’t done any better.

                      But again, anyone who managed to buy before about 1985 is ok. They can ride the ups and downs and still be up. Those buying in the mid-late 1990s and later timing has been exceedingly critical for housing and stocks.

                      There are many people still waiting for their homes to get back up to where they bought them a dozen years ago. Not to mention the retail investors who’ve ended up buying the highs in stocks. So tell me again how stocks and real estate are so much better than gold.

                    • Brent every stock index that is diversified has gone up many times what your gold has. Gold should be a small part if any in a person’s portfolio. If you believe differently then you lose. Buying stocks should be done by dollar cost averaging and not by seeing the market up to all time highs and then put all your money in. The same kind of thing should be done with housing. If people keep bidding them up housing very high then it is not a good time to buy. If you do then you take your chances. I never did say to put all of your money in real estate. How are you doing investing in gold? Gold does better than anything else during short periods of time but a diversified portfolio always has blown away gold investments over a longer period of time. I do have to laugh at the guys selling investing letters on investing in gold. They are making a lot of money but the gold investors they sell the letters to are not.Clover

                    • Clover, an index fund follows, and this may be a big surprise to you, the index. When the bottom drops out of stock market index funds crash. Diversification of stocks only protects against the risk of individual stocks or of particular business sectors, it doesn’t do squat when the market as a whole goes down.

                      Every market crash the diversified 401K and retail stock investors get hit hard. By wrecking safe yield to blow another stock market bubble things are going to get real ugly when it pops.

                    • Brent libertarians will never understand because you have others think for you. You hear an add about buying gold on fear then you jump at it. I see it clearly now. All anyone has to do to get libertarians to follow is to throw fear at them. Tell them the government is violent and libertarians jump all over it. Which one of you have had the government give violence towards you? Clover
                      Brent you talk about market crashes but my first job out of college that I had for many years I invested through my 401k with a small percentage of my income. That investment is now worth almost as much as my total pay I had at that job. That is with market crashes and corrections. Go ahead and live with your 1% gains a year and you lose big time. You would not even keep up with inflation. You say that gold is better but it has had a crash this year and has in the past. Gold has little value other than what people give it. You can not eat it. You can not get interest or dividends from it. Give me a pound of gold to keep for 30 years and what is it going to do for me? Nothing.

                    • Clover,

                      Really? Seriously?

                      Each day, all of us are compelled to live under duress – the threat of violence (which will become the actuality) if we do not do as ordered. From “buckling up for safety” to handing over whatever percentage of our money the government decides we “owe” it.

                      By your standard, the Soviet government never “give (sic) violence toward” its citizens, either.

                      All they had to do was obey!

                    • Clover, why are you changing the subject? Did I discuss violence here? No I haven’t. But yes, I’ve been threatened with violence by government employees more than once. Had I not been submissive to them, I wouldn’t be able to type this now. They would have ended my life or beaten me severely and then put me in a cage had I just walked away from them.

                      Clover, you keep acting as if I am arguing for gold. I haven’t argued for gold. Anyway my bartering plan is booze so you can stop worrying about how I’ll eat if paper money goes away.

                      Anyways I’ve only been telling you the reality of 401K and stock investing. I started working as the dot com bubble was just getting started. Sure if I had started in the 1970s like you I’d be able to weather bubbles. But the problem is there have been only a couple small windows where investing in stocks has made sense in my working life. I made some windows, I missed some windows. Then there were windows to get out, so far I’ve made all of those, most people don’t. That’s how a bubblious market system works.

                      A 401K is a constant contribution system. One is always buying. That means a lot of buying at elevated prices. That means losses later. Especially considering that the average person panics and sells in the crash and doesn’t buy back until it’s gone back up. Even those who can wait it through just get back what they put in. The 401K system does not offer any sort of safe return that keeps up with inflation. If you take risks for yield and avoid getting nailed in crashes you can do ok but for everyone that does so there are probably 10 or more people who don’t.

                      The entire system was cooked up by wall street cronies to make money on fees and have a supply of greater fools to buy at the top. But like any good pyramid scheme it needed success stories of people who got in at the ground floor.

                      You keep mentioning dividends Clover, what are some good dividend paying stocks? I’d really like some stocks like those my grandfather had that he got from his father. Really old school stuff. Paid about 20% of the value in dividends every year. Of course that sort of old school stuff can’t be permitted any more and the stock was recalled back in the late 90s. You got any good old school dividend stocks that can still be purchased today Clover? Let me know, I’ll check it out and buy some if it’s any good.

                    • Eric the current road system is the only thing on the plate. You have given us no alternative. You just say you want it run differently but you have not given a single detail on what your plan is. Eric you say that we should run our road system differently but how? Eric road fuel taxes do not pay for the entire road system. The road tax has not been increased since I can remember and construction and maintenance costs have gone up. You tell us how we should pay for it. I do not want to hear how we shouldn’t do it . I want to know what your solutions are in detail. Eric I will never get that from you.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      The fact that something exists does not mean there aren’t better alternatives – much less that the existing thing is morally defensible.

                      I’ve tried to engage you in a debate about the morality – not the utility – of roads and so on funded and created coercively.

                      You refuse to discuss the moral aspect because at some level, you know your position is morally indefensible.

                    • Brent I started working in the 80s. I was paying into the 401k for years and now it is worth many many times what I put in. Brent I can not help the people that jump ship after a big drop. That is their problem. Those people should never have invested in the first place.
                      Clover
                      As far as your big dividend stocks from the past, who cares? In the early 80s interest for buying a house was between 15 and 18 percent. You better have made good dividends back then. Actually many of the higher paying dividend stocks of today do better compared to inflation as they did in your father’s day. Many stock funds back in those days also did better than 15 percent a year.
                      Brent in the past you said that if you were not good the police would have kicked your ass. Brent if you act like a jerk and start swinging at them, I could care less if they kicked your ass. You would get no sympathy from me. My dad said if I or my brothers got into trouble that he would not bail our asses out. He said we would have to sit it out. That is my philosophy also.

                    • Clover defines “being good” as synonymous with obedience. To whatever law or order the government spews out. Implicit in Clover’s view is that all laws and orders are by definition “good” because they are laws and orders issued by the government.

                      Is there any law or order people are not obligated to obey, Clover?

                    • In other words Clover you’re full of sh*t and living in the distant past. It doesn’t matter if it was 1977 or 1981 when you started. That opportunity doesn’t exist today. After the next crash stocks will be right back at mid-late 1990s levels. All one can do in the last 20 years is ride bubbles and hope to get off at the top.

                      Oh and I remember the early 80s. I earned 14% interest on my savings in a CD. But now you recommend taking huge risk just to earn a little bit. That’s what your government has done. It’s decimated safe return.

                      And of course you’re backing off your dividend claims. You were lying and I called you on it. Your response is to insult me.

                      Your last paragraph is yet another one of your trolling fabrications because you can’t admit you’re wrong, because ultimately you’re a troll. The sort of person who gets his jollies off making other people angry. I may reply to you clover because I don’t get angry I just enjoy it as you squirm. I troll trolls.

                    • Eric you said that people will follow a better idea. I agree. I will follow a better idea but you have yet to lay one out. It is easy to complain about something but if you do not offer a better solution then what good are you?
                      Eric if you act like a total jerk I could care less what someone else does to you. In my opinion you deserve everything you get if you act like a jerk. Eric you say that libertarians are all about being good to others and leave them alone but then you say you have the right to be a jerk. What do libertarians really believe?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Th problem is that alternative ideas are not allowed. We’re forced to accept the government’s idea. This is the fact you endlessly avoid discussing, let alone admitting.

                    • Brent you insult yourself every time you speak. You know nothing about investing. You say to just give me 20% a year on your money. Who is going to do that Brent? Do you want the government to do it? It seems to me that Libertarians want a very strong dollar. It has been brought up many times. You do not get a strong dollar by having 20% interest. You only get 20% on your money when it is weak and you have high inflation. Oil price would be triple or more from what you have now if you were getting 20% on your money. Brent you do not have a clue. If a financially solid company was paying out 10 percent dividend on their stock then the stock price would triple the next day and your dividend would automatically be cut to 1/3 what it was. The only way companies will be paying 10% or dividend right now is if inflation was taking off or the company was falling apart and everyone starts selling the stock which bring the dividend up at least temporarily. Do you understand this or did it just go through your ears?Clover

                    • Clover you can’t read for meaning and you can’t write coherently yet you claim to be some sort of investing winner. Sure Clover.

                      Let me know where those good dividend stocks are Clover. Put up or shut up. Display your wisdom. Stop making up lies about what I wrote and just put up some evidence.

                    • Brent go and do your own research. You are just like any other libertarian. You want everything handed to you and you will not pay for anything. I do not want a high dividend stock. Why should I go and do your research? I believe in growth and dividends. You are the one that wants only dividends. Good luck with your search.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Libertarians “want everything handed to them”?

                      Which of us advocates theft and violence?

                      Hint: Look in the mirror.

                      Which of us eschews all forms of aggressive violence?

                      Hint: It’s not you, Clover.

                      Whatever I have I either earned or acquired non-violently. Can you say the same, Clover?

                      Which of us is content to leave other people alone and doesn’t want a thing unless it’s freely given or exchanged?

                      Hmmm?

                    • I’ve already done the research Clover, that’s how I know you’re lying and why I called you on it.

                      PS: I have some dividend stocks. I think my dividend income might have paid my annual pizza bill.

                    • There you go again Brent. You do not know the difference between a trader and an investor. A trader can make money and sometimes lose money in anything that fluctuates in price and gold certainly does. Give it up Brent and put your big investment in the bank at 1%.Clover

                    • Clover changes the subject and lies… again.

                      As usual Clover all you had to do was put up some simple evidence and you can’t do it. You prattle on and on and on changing the subject. That’s troll behavior. That’s all you are, on the road and off.

                    • Brent I looked up the filing about the position in gold. It was done in the second quarter of this year. With the current price that makes it a 6 to 10 percent loss so far. He may even not be in the position any more since it was recorded weeks ago. Go for it Brent.Clover

                    • Clover, you argued that the “best INVESTORS” do not touch gold. Apparently they do. That’s how it works Clover. Finding a cite to show the other party is wrong. You’re wrong.

                    • Brent it is obvious that he did not do very good investing in gold being down up to 10 percent in a few weeks. Brent he is a trader and he lost, An investor plans on holding onto something for a year or far longer.Clover

                      Eric yes libertarians want things given to them. You say you do not want to pay for roads. You want it optional so that others pay your way. Brent wants investment research done for him. You do not want health insurance but if you have to go to the hospital you want others to donate and pay your expenses.
                      Libertarians want things their way so that others pay their expenses.

                    • Clover,

                      Why must you lie?

                      I have never said I “do not want to pay for roads.” I defy you to produce any such statement emanating from my mouth or keyboard.

                      I have said I do not want to be forced to pay for roads I do not use.

                      Do you comprehend the distinction?

                      The fact that you must constantly resort to distorting what your opponents actually said – then abuse them for things they haven’t said – reveals either your dishonesty or your vacuity.

                      Which is it, Clover?

                      What you’re trying to do, I think, is what Clovers always do. That is, characterize people who do not wish to pay for what you think is needful as being “cheats” and what have you. It is an amazing feat of moral reversal.

                      You also love to equate (and conflate) one thing with another thing. For example, you accuse me of “being in favor of drunk driving” when all I have done is question the definition of “drunk” and questioned the propriety of presuming that people are in fact “drunk” until they prove they are not.

                      Likewise, you equate questioning/disobeying any law with “being a jerk” rather than discussing the moral validity of the law at issue. The law – and those who enforce it – are never jerks, in your eyes. Only those who question it are.

                      Etc. Etc.

                      Look, Clover. If the things you insist are so needful, why is it necessary to force people to “contribute”? Why not just get like-minded people together and everyone who wants to participate can chip in? Then – like any private club or hotel – you can keep out the “freeloaders.”

                      We don’t want a thing from you, Clover.

                      But you always want something from us.

                      And if we’re unwilling to give it up, you will try to take it. Or rather, you will sic your proxies on us – because you’re a coward, in addition to a moral cretin.

                    • Clover you ignorant slut the investor in question manages a huge and hugely successful hedge fund that puts him in the category of people you claimed don’t touch gold. He touched it so you’re wrong. His loss or gain at this moment doesn’t matter, your argument was they won’t touch it. You were wrong.

                      I wouldn’t trust any research done by you nor did I ask you to do any. I asked you to back up your claims about dividend income. You refuse to do it. That’s what makes you a lying troll.

                    • Eric we need to make you pay for roads because otherwise it would be by donation and you would never donate. You have never donated for anything. You also said you would not pay for auto liability insurance. If you injure someone and it costs them hundreds of thousands in hospital bills you would say that others need to donate because you will not pay and do not have the ability. You want others to pay for everything.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Is it necessary to force people to pay for Burger King? To compel them to “donate” to have an electrician come to their place to fix their wiring? Is it necessary to force you to pay for the ski slopes you like to use?

                      Lesson?

                      People do not need to be forced to pay for the things they actually do want. But force is necessary to get them to pay for the things they don’t want.

                      That’s the awful secret you and your kind will do anything to smother.

                      You and yours can’t stand the idea that people should be free to buy what they want – and nothing they don’t want. You and yours want others to pay for the things you and your kind want.

                      This is the sole and only reason for what you and yours style euphemistically as “taxes.”

                      In reality, it’s strong-armed theft.

                      To fund and finance the things you and people like you think are worth funding and financing but which other people are not willing to freely fund and finance. Rather than try to convince people to fund whatever it is – and agree to leave them be if they decide they’re not interested (and go and fund whatever it is on your own nickel, which would then entitle you to restrict access/use to only those who did pay in) you use your thug proxies to force people to “donate,” on the theory that your idea of what’s needful trumps other people’s right to be left out of your plans, if they so desire.

                      You’re despicable, you cowardly fake-named little creep.

                    • Really Eric? You do not know the difference between a road system and a Burger King? I thought so. Eric you can get a burger on most every major corner there is. If you want to go and buy that car you always wanted your whole life you would not be able to in your system because you only paid for the local roads you travel every day or are you going to have a toll booth every few hundred feet? What about power to your house? Are you going to pay for 20 power lines to your house so that you are not tied to one power company? Eric you really do not have a clue about anything. Your mind is so far up in the clouds or should I say in the gutter that you are incapable of any logical thinking.Clover

                    • Yes, Clover, I know the difference.

                      One relies on voluntary free exchange, the other on coercion.

                      You support coercion to fund the things you deem desirable but which others may not deem desirable.

                      That is the bottom line.

                      You’re a thug – and a coward. Because you’re unwilling to do the coercing yourself. Heck, you’re too much of a cringing ‘fraidy cat to even use your real name.

                    • Yes Eric I do support coercion if that is what you call what we have now. Under your system the United States would become the worst 3 rd world country there is. We would not have power, we would not have fuel, we would not have food we would not have roads …….. If you want to live off of your couple of acres of ground then good for you. I am super rich in everything we have been using the past hundred years compared to what we would have under your system. Under your system there would be starvation, no jobs, no roads or power but yes your guns you so cherish would be in great demand. Eric I do not know anyone that wants your world. The Mexicans would run back to Mexico to flee your poverty.Clover

                    • Clover finally admits to supporting coercion. His “right” – as he sees it – to force other people to do what he wants them to do, to force them to pay for the things he wants, even if they don’t want those things and don’t use those things. Clover admits to being a thug, a bully.

                      Excellent.

                      It’s a start.

                      Now I’d like you to ask yourself why it is that you believe – I assume – that people would not continue to manufacture, buy and sell things they desired (or which others desired and were therefore willing to pay for) absent coercion?

                      You see, Clover, people want clothes, electricity, food, a million other things… and – yes – roads, too.

                      There’s no need to coerce them.

                      Your premise – that people won’t make things, sell things and buy things they want and need unless they’re forced to – is preposterous.

                      But even if there were a need to coerce people to get them to make/sell/buy things, you have no right to do so.

                      Your comfort, your desires, your notions of “progress” do not give you any more right to assault others than I have to come to your house and threaten to smash your ugly little face in to get you to “help” fund EPautos.com.

                      Much as I loathe you, I respect that you have a right to not have your face smashed in, or have that threatened, to compel your obedience or your “help.”

                      I am free to ask for your help – and you are free to offer your help or tell me to piss off. In the case of the former, I will thank you. In the case of the latter, I must accept your decision and walk away, leaving you in peace.

                      I, in other words, respect your right to say no.

                      This is the moral principle at issue.

                    • Again Eric you offer no details. Details are what causes your ideal world to fall apart. Answer just a few of these:
                      You say that roads will all be private. Who and when and how are you going to pay the new owner?Clover

                      You say that things like power lines and roads and pipelines should not be forced through. Eric you would not have power or roads to your house if that was true. How would you solve the problem? The roads would be blocked by previous owners of the property the road now goes through. Your car will sit.

                      The same with power lines. They would be torn down by the people whose property it now goes through. Your house would become worthless in your society. You could not sell it.
                      Then it comes to pipelines for fuel. Millions would not freeze this winter and again your car would sit. You are not forcing that through my property you say. Let them all die.
                      Again Eric your have given no details on your system. If you were to try to get people to follow your new system wouldn’t you give a shred of details?

                    • Clover,

                      It is not my burden to provide “details” about how things would flesh out in a society that eschewed coercion. I don’t have a crystal ball. Your position amounts to a fat guy saying there is no alternative to being fat because he has always been fat. My position is that he could eat less, exercise… but we can’t know until he actually tries one or more of those things. You refuse to let him try – and then use this as your “proof” that a fat guy has no alternative but to be a fat guy.

                      Interestingly, you don’t demand “details” when it comes to spontaneous/voluntary transactions of all sorts that take place every day – providing you with all sorts of things you want, without any need to use coercion.

                      But this is not a utilitarian debate, Clover.

                      It is a debate about morality – what’s right and what’s wrong.

                      And much as you may esteem this or that thing, you have no right to force others to be involved. None.

                      Grok that?

                    • Clover, everything you mention was once done privately without government and without coercion. However some of the businesses used government to get what they needed. Needless to say those that could use government’s monopoly on legal violence and the taxpayers’ money won out.

                      There are many fossilized artifacts of that earlier age, such as utility easements on private property.

                      You are simply ignorant of alternatives to the status-quo. As to paying for the roads, your dear government is spending considerable sums in experiments with regard to how they will spend billions more to tax us by the mile and funnel the monies to each government body as appropriate for each road. So your government system for the side effect of tracking us is going to create a very complex system of road use billing that would be far more complex and detailed than any sort of non coercive road system need be.

                    • Yes again not details. I have roads to travel on, I have power lines to run my computer and appliances. I have natural gas to heat my home. All of these would have been impossible without some form of government to coordinate how it was possible. Yes Brent when there are few people in a country and you live off the land you do not need government. We have 100s of millions of people in our country and your do anything you feel like and pay for as little as possible does not work with millions of people. If you have a plan of how hundreds of millions of people can do their own thing without any coordination then I would like to hear it. Hundreds of years ago they tried to use the fix and build your own roads in your area with your own manual labor and it did not work Similar to what you are recommending. If we have tried things similar to what you recommend and it did not work then why try it again? Your roads would never have been built or maintained if it was not for our current system. You would not be living where you are now under your recommended system. Why fight for something worse?Clover
                      If I did not like a job I was making a living in and the job market was tight and I had no savings no other job potential then why would I quite my job? That is similar to what you are wanting. You want to stop what we have when the alternative looks poor and even worse.

                    • Clover,

                      If I presented a list of “good things” (defined by me) that I could do with your money – lots of “details” – would it morally justify me threatening to smash your face in to compel you to hand over your money?

                      No?

                      If it’s not morally acceptable for me, as an individual, to assault or threaten to assault you in order to obtain money for some “good” or “plan” (lots of “details”) then why is it ok for anyone else to do the same thing?

                      I want you to address – to deal with – the moral issue, Clover.

                      Not go on and on about how much you value things like government roads.

                      PS: It’s very interesting that you use the word, “coordination.” Do you know who else was a big fan of “coordination”? I’ll give you a hint: He had a funny little moustache….

                    • Clover, your fascist/corporatist programming is showing through.

                      Sounds like Trump is your guy this time around. Unless you’re of the lefty bent and then it’s probably Sanders but could be HR Clinton. They’ll coordinate stuff for you.

                    • Eric I have never had a gun to my head or had violence given to me. Eric I gladly give up up a portion of my money so that I can drive to work. Under your system there would be no roads. You have given us no plans. Under your system I would not have power to my home, gas to heat the home and gas to drive to work thanks to the planning that we now have. Eric I would gladly have violence placed on you if it meant that I could keep the standard of living that I now have. You have given no plan to replace it.Clover
                      You say it is not your responsibility to give details on the system you so want. Tell me Eric whose responsibility it is to come up with the details and bring them here and explain. it

                    • Clover comes clean:

                      “I would gladly have violence placed on you if it meant that I could keep the standard of living that I now have.”

                      Ok.

                      Then you concede I have just as much right to “have violence placed on you” in order to improve my standard of living.

                      But unlike you, I won’t exercise this “right.”

                      Because unlike you, I am not a hyena.

                    • Yes Eric if your kind acts like a jerk I could care less if they kick your ass. In my opinion you were the who asked for it. No one that I have ever met has violence placed upon them. What does that say about you?
                      Clover
                      Eric what it comes down to is that we have one of the best countries in the world in which millions of people would gladly move here. If you think it is so terrible then move your ass out of our country and a far better person will replace you.

                    • Clover,

                      You consider my desire to be left in peace “acting like a jerk.” Very interesting.

                      You, on the other hand, have openly admitted that you think it’s ok to assault – even kill – peaceful people in order to take their things and force them to support your lifestyle. Also interesting.

                      I’d like to know on what basis you’d object to my threatening to beat the shit out of you in order to force you to support my lifestyle?

                      If it’s (as the Greeks styled it) the “rule of the stronger,” then – please – bring it on. I’d happily meet you man to Clover at my place, anytime. I will give you a reasonably fair fight – in that I will not bring others along to do my work for me. Which is far more courtesy than you’d ever extend me.

                      But – as Brent observes – you’re a smarmy little coward who would never “in a million years” personally try to steal things to support your lifestyle from someone capable of fighting back. You’re a poltroon. Like the typical American. Who talks belligerently about “kicking ass” while he watches fuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttball. Who won’t even use his (her?) real name while tough-talking online.

                      The fact is I’d never initiate violence toward you or any other person. Whereas initiating violence defines you.

                      If you had a shred of humanity left, you’d be somewhat chastened by that. Maybe stop to think – for just a moment – about the door you’ve opened, the principle you’ve endorsed. But – like most Americans – you are a morally calloused, intellectually stunted herd-beast ruled by your urges, one of which is to trample whatever you don’t like or doesn’t support your lifestyle.

                    • “Eric I would gladly have violence placed on you if it meant that I could keep the standard of living that I now have. ”

                      There’s our Clover in a nutshell.

                      That’s the fundamental disconnect between you and me Clover. You want to use politics, use government to take from others so you can retain your lifestyle while I just want to be left in peace. But you don’t have the guts to come take the wealth yourself do you Clover? You want the benefits but you can’t do the dirty work, so support other thugs who will do it.

                    • Eric and Brent you are the most hypocritical persons alive. Just leave you alone and you will have everything for free.

                      Tell me how you would even be living where you are living? It was by using the very same things from government that you are against. The power that goes to your house is only there because the government was there. The gasoline in your car is only there because the government made it possible to transport it to you. If you had it your way everything would be private. If someone wants to build a road through your property to allow thousands of people cheaper and better travel then you would stop it. The road system would not be by your house. In your system one person can double the cost of your transportation by doubling your transportation miles if it is possible to travel at all.
                      The road that is now privately owned by your house would then triple in cost with your system. The owner would say tough. That is the only way for you to get town. That is what you want not me. You have not given any details on how to resolve these situations. Clover

                      Again Eric if you buy a house that you know will have property taxes due and you refuse to pay those bills then that is your fault. You can be removed from the property and it be sold. If you refuse to leave voluntarily and the police come to evict you and if you choose to fight it out then that is your vault there is violence. You chose having violence . I could care less if they kick your ass. You asked for it.

                    • Clover,

                      I’d like you to provide a single example of my using – or demanding to use – anything I’ve not paid for.

                      What I object to is being forced to pay for things I don’t use but which you think are useful.

                      You are someone who believes you’ve gotta break eggs to make omelettes – which is true.

                      I’d rather skip the omelette, in that case.

                      For you, “big plans” justify hurting people – or threatening to. You are thus the classic collectivist; the true moral descendant of Alexander Hamilton and Abe Lincoln.

                      But the problem with your morality, Clover, is that it begets more and more violence. There is no stopping it. Once you accept any of it, you will get more of it.

                      By your own sick logic, you have given me license to hurt you – or threaten to – in order to compel your obedience or to obtain money from you – provided I can do so under color of “the law.” Thus, the law no longer offers you any substantive protection. It’s merely a matter of getting the votes or enacting legislation.

                      This is why America has become a hyena state.

                      There might be less in the way of grandiose projects such as Interstate highways in a free society governed by non-aggression as the abiding moral principle. But people would be able to live in peace, Clover. Or at any rate, under less duress than they live under today.

                      But you and yours believe your “lifestyle” and your “plans” trump other people’s right to be let alone.

                      Again: You are a bully, a thug. And a coward.

                      And you consider me a jerk for pointing that out!

                    • OK Eric. You say that you only want to pay for what you use. List out each road that you are going to use the rest of your life and how many miles on each road and what a fair price is for that. I am waiting. If you are not able to do that then your logic fails miserably.Clover

                      Oh, we left out that you want some food or other things that are transported. Name the amount you will be ordering and when so the shipper can pay up front for the road costs.

                    • Clover,

                      I am not going to debate you on utilitarian grounds. I will continue to press you on moral grounds.

                      But, the fact remains that roads could be easily funded without coercion. Tolls are an obvious example. Private toll roads exist – have existed. They work.

                      What you seem to want is for me to elaborate how an exact replica of your government/coercive system would manifest in a non-coercive system. But the whole point, Clover, is that we’d have a different system.

                      It might not be exactly what you want. But it would not be coercive.

                      Which makes it moral, as opposed to yours.

                    • So Eric do you want a toll road on every road? Do we pay every few hundred feet? Eric I am not made to pay for roads. I gladly pay for roads because otherwise I would not have a job, you would not have a job and most everyone here that is still working would not have a job. I would never go skiing again. Eric you say that I might not like what we have under your plan but it would be different. Tell me again why that is a good thing to go to something I do not like and does not work work me or others? Why is it good to be unemployed and not able to go and do anything?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      What I want is for people to refrain from aggression. Do you savvy?

                      If you “gladly pay” for roads – or whatever – that is fine with me. But you have no right to force me (or anyone else) to pay for them (or any other thing).

                      Do you savvy?

                      You go on and on about how awful you believe things would be absent coercive collectivism. But you do not know how things would be absent coercive collectivism. You merely assume they’d be worse. They might just as easily be better.

                      Wherever there is more liberty, Clover, we get more choice and lower costs and better efficiency.

                      Why do you believe that coercive collectivism is better (materially, for some people) given that?

                      And, even if it were, it does not invalidate the moral principle at issue.

                      You have no right to assault people or threaten them with assault to further your “plans” or to “make progress” – as you see it. People have an absolute right to be left in peace, no matter what you may think about their disinclination to buy into your “plans” and notions of “progress.”

                    • Eric name me one person that you know who has been assaulted for not paying for roads? I have not known anyone. Name him and bring him on here.
                      Eric from what you have said, you travel far more miles than the average person. That being said we should call you a freeloader. You are steeling money from others. Clover
                      Eric we can not have everyone driving our roads and having just a few pay for them. If you do not want to pay your fair share then get the hell out of my country freeloader.

                      You say that you only want to pay your fair share. Actually you do not want to pay anything. If you want everyone to pay only the exact amount each person owes toward roads then we would need millions of people trying to figure out what the fair share is. The world is not always 100% fair at anything. It is too bad that you have lived all of these decades and did not figure that out. Things are not even fair across a small family so how the hell do you think everyone needs to pay exactly what they owe? If you have that figured out then I will give you everything I own because that would be worth trillions of dollars if you figured out the impossible.

                    • Clover,

                      Everything the government does involves the threat of force. The threat of force to compel compliance is called being under duress.

                      It is exactly the same thing as my (hypothetically) threatening to pay you a visit to get you to reveal your true name. Whether I actually pay you a visit is irrelevant. You’ve been threatened and the fear of being visited forces you to do that which you would otherwise not do.

                      Of course, I am not a thug (unlike you) and so – much as I find you despicable – I’d never threaten you to compel your compliance with anything. I merely wish to be left alone and in peace. You cannot abide leaving others alone and in peace, if it means your “plans” or “lifestyle” aren’t fulfilled.

                      Again: You are a violent little creep. You are no different than a street criminal except you lack the street criminal’s physical audacity in that you like others to do your thieving and assaulting on your behalf, while you collect the “benefits” without getting your own hands bloody. For you, an election is – quoting Mencken – an advance auction of stolen goods.

                      Now, to address your utilitarian arguments: The fact is people have been forced off their land via eminent domain to make way for government roads. And the fact is roads can be paid for via tolls as well as fuel fees – and neither necessarily entail coercion.

                      But – again – whether it’s more “efficient” to build roads or any other thing via coercive means is not the question. The question, Clover, is whether it’s right to build anything via coercive means. Whether you or any other person (or group of them) has the moral right to threaten other people or groups of them with violent reprisals in order to make them do what you want.

                      You say yes.

                      I say no.

                      Because I believe that if it’s wrong for me, as an individual, to threaten to smash your face in (or actually to smash your face in) to compel you to “help” EPautos, then it’s just as wrong for me to do the same thing under the auspices of this construct called government.

                      Because there is no such thing as government, Clover. It has no reality. It is just a euphemism. A way to avoid dealing with the fact that government is just a bunch of people who’ve anointed themselves with the right to threaten others with violence, to do the things that most of us understand are loathsome and despicable when done by an individual.

                      Your problem, Clover, is that you’ve been sheep-dipped since childhood to venerate this thing called government. And it’s easy for you, because you make a living via government. It enhances your lifestyle. In the same way that a tapeworm’s lifestyle is enhanced by living in the gut of its host.

                    • Eric you have mental problems You say that everything is done through coercive means.

                      Tell me the details of your system on how your world would work?

                      What if your power lines were falling down and one person out of thousands who has the power lines go through their land says you are not replacing the lines. Would you then gladly live without power?Clover

                      What if your road is falling apart and they need to drive on the edge of the property of hundreds of people to make the repairs. What if one person says no. Would you gladly live without a road to town?

                      What if the pipeline needs to be replaced that carries your gasoline to your gas stations. Would you gladly go without fuel since it may interfere with others?

                      Eric we all live in a society. If you choose to live in hat society then you have to make sacrifices and sometimes do what you would not like to do for this to be one of the greatest countries in the world. If you are incapable in living in a society then you need to find a small island out in the middle of the ocean to live. Living in our country is not any different than living with a spouse. You can not always do what you want or our country or a relationship would fall apart.

                    • Clover,

                      You keep on trotting out your utilitarian objections. Do you understand the concept of morality? Of right vs. wrong?

                      What “works” for you does not entitle you to threaten other people with violence. Not even if it means you must do without something you need or want.

                      Your needs and wants are not a license to hurt people, or threaten to. How many times must I explain this to you?

                      It does not matter whether your standard of living would be less – or more. You have no right to use force or threaten force, ever. Peaceful people have a right to be left in peace. Period. If that means slower or less “progress” (as you define it) so be it.

                      You believe I have mental problems for desiring a society in which people interact peacefully and voluntarily rather than with fists, clubs and guns.

                      Bizarre – and sad, too.

                      PS: A spouse is there by free choice and may depart at will. There is no coercion involved. It is a mutually agreeable, voluntary association. Which I suppose is a concept beyond your Cloverish ken.

                    • Thanks Eric you finally get it. There is no coercion involved in living by the laws of our society. You have the right to leave our country at any time. Our country is one of the best in the world. It is one of the best because of the rules and laws that we have. Most of those rules and laws were in place hundreds of years before you were born. If you choose to not follow our laws and way of life that has made our country prosper then you are very free to leave. No aggression or violence is needed because it is your choice you do not want to live in our society,.Clover

                      Tell me Eric why you have the liberty to change our country into a third world nation? What gives you the right? Just leave and there will be no chance of violence towards you because you choose to fight and take the first swing.

                    • Clover writes:

                      “There is no coercion involved in living by the laws of our society.”

                      It speaks for itself.

                      It really does.

                    • “There is no coercion involved in living by the laws of our society. You have the right to leave our country at any time. “

                      The US federal government claims us no matter where we go. If you Clover, were to move to another country and then not obey US tax law you could still be put in prison for it and/or suffer financial penalties. Now of course one may be granted resignation of US citizenship but it’s not a right as far the fedgov is concerned. There is a process involved and it must be completed and their approval thereof must be granted.

                    • Eric you are a joke. You make your living writing on your own web site and do not have the ability to run it yourself and you are trying to tell us how our country should be run? Go move to an island where all you have to worry about is yourself.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      I don’t want to run anything – except my own life. That’s the difference between you and I (well, one of them).

                      You want to run other people’s lives – for your own benefit and because you get off on the idea of having power over others.

                    • No Eric you are wrong again. I do not want to control you. I don’t want to have to control you. The thing that made our country great is that we figured out how to work together. You on the other hand are incapable of working with others to achieve a common goal. You say it is all about self. Let the others burn. By working together we have power distributed to homes, we have roads across the country and we did things like land on the moon first. Our country is great because we work together. Eric we would be a third world country under your system in only thinking about self. Everyone would be unemployed under your system. We would have no roads or power to homes and would not have gas to fuel your vehicle. Eric you are incapable of working with others. Clover
                      Eric under your system in only donating to things like roads if you feel like it then we would not have roads. You and your kind never donate for anything. You can not have a good road system when only a few contribute and they figured that out more than 200 years ago. Go and look it up. That is why we are so great. We as a country figured it out already but you want to go back to a system that did not work. Most people try to learn from past mistakes but not you.

                    • Clover,

                      “Work together”? I’m all for that – provided it’s voluntary and non-coercive. Why do you always leave out the involuntary and coercive aspect of your notion of “working together”?

                      Why do you always use dishonest – evasive – language?

                      “Working together” – in the same way that a field slave “works together” with the overseer. “Contributions” – that you’re not free to refuse to “contribute.”

                      “Customers” (per IRS and DMV) who are not free to decline the “services.”

                      What are you afraid of, Clover?

                      If I disagree with what you think is important to do (or fund) you insist that you (and people like you) have the right to force me to do what you want, or “help” fund it.

                      I am quite capable of working with others. How do you suppose I’ve managed to earn a living as a writer for the past 20-something years? I’ve never forced anyone to pay me. They pay me because they figure I’m worth being paid. None of my income derives from coercion.

                      Can you say the same?

                    • Eric it is beyond me why you have a group of followers who follow and pay a liar. You bring up how our country gives us violence to everyone for not paying for their share of the roads but you have yet to name a person who has had violence given to them. Would you call a person that says such things a liar? Clover

                      It is beyond my comprehension why someone would pay for your stupidity. You say you have a better way of doing things but have yet to name a single detail. That is because you are a liar and have no plan.

                      Why would someone follow a person who says that they probably would not like the new system. Who in their right mind would change to something worse just because Eric says that there will no longer be violence, something he can not come up with an existing example in the first place.

                    • Clover,

                      I wish you spoke English.

                      It is not lying to fail to provide you with “details,” as you style it.

                      On the other hand, it is lying – or at least quibbling – to refuse to acknowledge that when you are not free to say, “no thanks” or “I’d rather not” without fear of being assaulted then you are under duress, which is a form of coercion.

                      Why must you always lie, Clover?

                      PS: Your authoritarian language is once again very revealing. I do not have followers, Clover. I have supporters. Who are free to support me – or not.

                      You see, Clover, not one penny of the money I earn comes my way via threats or violence. Can you same the same?

                    • Eric I get paid by a private company who does not force anyone to do anything. I am all for private companies when it makes sense. A local road does not make sense to be owned by a private company because the only option to not use it is to go hungry and lose your job. Tell me why that is a good thing? A company can ask whatever money they want or end up buying your house for 10 cents on the dollar because it is worthless if you can not get there.

                      You say that there should be no coercion in our country. So Eric if you do not pay your power company then they have to leave it on otherwise it is coercion? Clover
                      So you do not have to pay for the fuel that heats your house because it would be coercion if they made you pay for it.
                      What about roads? Is it coercion to make you pay or should they just leave you travel for free and make others pay?
                      Eric you are free to find a better country. 100s of millions of people like what we have.

                    • Clover,

                      I doubt that. Name the company. I am certain it is a government-dependent entity if not some agency of the government. An illiterate (and innumerate) such as yourself could not possibly find productive employment in the non-coercive economy.

                      So, “tell us” (as you style it) where you work, Clover. We’re waiting with baited breath.

                      But we’ll be waiting a long time. Because – unlike most here, including myself – you’re all talk. You won’t even use your real name, coward that you are. Which indicates you’re a nonentity. A government drone or dependent. Either a DMV clerk or perhaps a cop or – just as likely – a teat-sucker living on “disability” and skiing on the down low. Prove me wrong, “Clover.” Tell us your name – and what you do for a living… .

                      You are “all for” private companies when it “makes sense”… to you. And when you arbitrarily decide otherwise? Then it’s ok to threaten people with violence.

                      This is why the country has become a free-for-all of organized/routinized violence. Democrats using violence when it “makes sense” to them and Republicans doing the same when it “makes sense” to them. They both agree that it’s ok to stomp on the individual when it “makes sense.” Neither sees the individual as having rights. Or at least, none that may not be “adjusted” when it “makes sense.”

                      Do you see what the problem with that is, Clover? It is a matter of opinion what “makes sense.” And your opinion is no more valid than any other person’s opinion. So what decides? Force. Who has the power to impose their opinions. In other words, might makes right. That is your position, Clover.

                      My position is the moral one. That aggression is always wrong. That’s a clear, objective standard. It can be used to categorize almost anything as either ok or not ok. You want to build a road and have bought the land (freely, without coercing the owners) and charge people who freely decide to use the road a fee that is mutually agreeable – this is moral. It “makes sense” to those involved because they have freely agreed to it. But if your road (or whatever) exists only because coercive methods were used, then it only “makes sense” to those who decided to use force. Their victims will have a different view.

                      Then we have this turd in the punchbowl:

                      “You say that there should be no coercion in our country. So Eric if you do not pay your power company then they have to leave it on otherwise it is coercion?”

                      If I contract to buy something, then I owe the person or company that provided it. The key thing, Clover, is contract to buy something.

                      In your filthy twitching little brain, you believe people “owe” for things they have not contracted to buy.

                    • Eric the only way that we as citizens have aggression towards us is if we or should I say you start it yourself.

                      Eric the world is coercive no matter if there was a government or not. If everything was privately owned and handled a gun would be the judge. You think we have violence now. It would be hundreds of times worse under your system.

                      You said you left your job you had in town. I would bet they used coercion on you and told you what to do. You are incapable of living with rules. Clover

                      Eric under your system there would be no jobs and starvation. I will gladly take what we have now over your system. You have given not a single detail on how to handle adversities under an all private system. That would be because you are stupid.

                    • Clover writes:

                      “Eric the only way that we as citizens have aggression towards us is if we or should I say you start it yourself.”

                      You are truly the fruit of government schooling.

                      Just do as you’re ordered and “we as citizens” (will have no) aggression towards us.”

                      So I guess the citizens of East Germany or the Soviet Union could live “with no aggression toward them,” to… provided of course they did as ordered.

                      Right, Clover?

                      Have you looked up duress yet?

                      And even when people live under constant duress, their actions constrained by the threat of violence, their free choice taken away, they still are subject to outright violence even when they’ve done nothing except obey. Examples include the government’s thugs kicking the door down of the wrong house – and attacking the occupants, who are then punished if they “resist.” And so on.

                      Clover writes:

                      “Eric under your system there would be no jobs and starvation.”

                      First, you have no idea – you simply assert this as fact.

                      Second, it’s a fact that when the country was extremely free, there was work (honest work) for anyone who wanted it and ample food, too. But Clover does not read, much less know the history of America (including the history of 18th and early 19th Century) America.

                      Clover has been taught – conditioned – that government is GOOD and that all good flows from government.

                    • Clover,

                      Hate to tell, you but a gun is already “the judge.”

                      Jesus!

                      Do you not grok – really – that government uses guns, men armed with guns, to impose its edicts? You’re that blind to reality?

                      And that we have no legal right to defend ourselves?

                      I’ll take private aggression any day. Because I can still defend myself against that.

                    • OK Eric. You say that all roads will be privately owned. You said that you will have a mutually agreed contract with the owner of each road that you use.
                      Clover
                      Tell me Eric what if you do not agree on a price? The owner of a privately owned road only buys and takes care of the road if they make a good profit. If you do not pay them the costs of the road and also profits then they will tell you to get lost. What then?

                      If you drive 50 different roads over a one year period and possibly some different roads the next year how do you plan on making agreements with up to 50 different owners? Is it going to be a full time job keeping up with contracts? With all the contract work the owner of the road is going to have more costs of employing dozens of more people just to keep up with your contracts. Eric with that said your new system is stupid and adds huge costs. Are you going to pay?

                    • Tell me, Clover: When are you going to respond to the moral question at hand?

                      I’m not going to debate hypothetical utilitarian objections with you.

                    • Eric there is no debating. I asked you a straight up question on how your brilliant system is going to work but you call it debating. Get off your 6 year old violence statements and give us the details. I went out tonight and drove on about 8 different roads and varying distances on each . Tell me how I am supposed to pay for that under your system.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      The issue is morality – whether it’s right to use violence to further what you subjectively deem to be “progress” or “worth doing.”

                      The “details” – as you style it – are irrelevant to the discussion. Which of course is why you focus on discussing them.

                      We do not, however, defend Stalin’s forced removal of the Kulaks from their farms, the wholesale plunder of their property and their physical extermination because Stalin had “details” and “plans” and he accelerated the industrialization of the Soviet Union thereby.

                      No, Clover. We regard what Stalin did as morally wrong.

                      Hitler and Mao and every other tyrant who ever lived had “details” and “plans” also.

                      If your mind was not crippled by watery genetics and government schooling, you’d grok the principle here.

                    • Eric details do matter. Facts do matter. The truth does matter. If you believe otherwise you would be a very stupid person.

                      There is no Stalin or Hitler in our country. If there is then name them. No one that I personally know has had violence given to them. If you have had violence towards you then tell us about it. Tell the truth.Clover

                      Eric another fact is that without a good road system our country would fall apart. Yes guns would be needed and used daily because 100s of millions of people would be unemployed and starving. If you think otherwise then explain.

                      So if you believe our road systems would be better and cheaper under a private system then explain because I am all for doing doing things better but until you give some details on the better system it is worthless.

                    • Clover,

                      Can you truly not grok that there is a difference between morality and “details”?

                      That whether something you believe to be desirable can be achieved does not mean that the means used to achieve it are necessarily moral?

                      You, like, Stalin, value “results” – and if others stand in your way…

                    • Clover writes:

                      “No one that I personally know has had violence given to them.”

                      Provided they do as ordered; provided they obey.

                      How many times must I explain the concept of duress, Clover? What will happen, Clover, if I decline to pay what I am told I “owe” the government? Do you suppose no violence will be “given” to me? That the government will say: Ok, we understand; have a nice day?

                      Your position, Clover, is that it’s not violent to threaten people with violence to make them do as ordered. That if they obey, then no violence has been them.

                      So, if I come to your house and make it very clear that I will beat the living shit out of you if you don’t hand over $100 to “help” EPautos, but I don’t actually beat the shit out of you because the threat of a beating was sufficient motivation to get you to hand me $100, then “no violence has been given to you”… right, Clover?

                    • eric, clover is fine with people treating you however they like as long as you act like a jerk. Seems like Steve Martin’s “jerk” was a guy who let people walk all over him. hhhmmmm.
                      That would make me or you the antithesis of a jerk.
                      I recall my introduction into pubic schools. I was an easy-going kid and would do just about anything for someone who asked me something of me. When I had orders given to me though I didn’t respond well and that never changed.

                      My parents rarely told me to do something….or else. They didn’t need to, I’d do what they wanted if they simply asked me to do something.

                      Did things ever change when I got to school. My 2nd grade teacher was a real bitch and a tyrant. I made failing grades in “citizenship”. My mother asked me why. It seemed natural to me since my older sister who had her as a teacher hated her and every other kid did too. The other teachers had no questions as to why nobody liked her.
                      That brings us to why cops are getting a backlash. Well, you get what you give and it’s always been this way. They’ve gone way over the line and it’s coming home. I think Ron Paul accurately described it as “blowback”.

                    • Eric I am under no threat of violence by our government. If a person chooses to not pay the taxes they owe by law there is no violence initiated unless you choose it. If you do not pay your property taxes then you are asked to leave. If you refuse and instead fight it out then I could care less what happens to you. That was your choice to have violence. It is not fair to another person who did not buy your property in the first place because they did know what property taxes went with buying that house and did not buy it for that reason and then you bought it and refused to pay. That is not fair to the other person or the people that are now paying for the services that you now ask for at no cost to you like driving on roads for free.Clover
                      Eric you have yet to answer any of my questions. When have you been threatened with violence?

                    • Clover, you are absolutely hopeless. Why don’t you test your belief? Just start ignoring government. Don’t fight them, just ignore them. Don’t pay them. Don’t pull over for a cop. Just pretend they aren’t there. Do not initiate violence or even dialog. Do nothing and see what happens. If your belief is correct you will not be physically seized and put in a cage. But you’re not going to test it because you know full well what would happen.

                  • Clover changes direction when it is confronted with reality.

                    The problem people with regards to pollution have always been those with influence over government. Those who could manipulate the court system. That’s how we got the ‘prove harm’ system that we still live under. Corporations can spew whatever isn’t yet proven to cause harm. Hence the issues with fracking and ground water. It’s ok until someone proves the fracking chemicals harm people via the ground water. That’s the system. The onus is on the victims. Under a property rights system that ground water is owned by someone or some group or some institution and any contamination of it is thus prohibited. No need to prove it is harmful to get compensation.

                    However you don’t like at system such as that because it doesn’t let people like you be lazy and push responsibility off on to others.

                    • BrentP, I’ll have to ask a geologist about fracking and ground water but the drilling process is closely controlled in Texas and fracking normally occurs thousands of feet below the water table. As long as I can remember(and this wasn’t always true) once the hole was drilled past the water table it is then concreted well beyond both upper and lower, then it is drilled again and cased before drilling continues to the “zone” where, after samples determine the depth of the top and bottom of the zone the hole is once again plugged with concrete above the zone or the end of the lease where it is once more plugged. And once again it’s drilled through and these days, the bit has already turned horizontal and that continues to the end of that zone. The well is cased, the casing is perforated and then it is fraced.

                      I think this is a fairly standardized practice across the entire industry but I’ll check it out and get back to you.

                      One thing about the patch these days is the cleanliness of locations during drilling and after completion.

                      I do recall back in the 80’s when cementing wasn’t nearly as well done as now that to save money cement that had been adulterated was used illegally. You will no longer see cement dumped and if it has been slightly wet before, they can now “fix” it. It’s so closely controlled I no longer have a source for free cement that would normally have been discarded.

                    • I was having a conversation about oil company profits with a friend last week. I pointed out that the WTI price was about 38% of what it was last year. But the price of fuel is only down 14%. I figured what fuel would now be if fuel fell at the same rate as crude, which I can see it probably can’t fall quite that far taking into consideration costs of refining. But, if it were to match the price of crude right now, gasoline would be $1.06/gallon instead of $2.39/gallon.

                    • Eightsouthman you are just like any other libertarian. You ignore details. You say that gas should be a little over a dollar a gallon. You forget that someone has to transport that oil to the refinery, refine it, deliver it to the gas station and then sell it. If you would do all that for less than a dollar then you are hired.Clover

                    • No, Clover – it’s not “details” at issue.

                      It’s right vs. wrong issue.

                      It’s wrong to use violence to get what you want. No matter how much you want whatever it is, no matter how “nice” whatever it is may be. Threatening to hurt people – and actually hurting them – in order to get it is a moral wrong.

                      Period.

                      That’s why you and your ilk seek to avoid discussing or even acknowledging the moral objection to your “plans.”

                      What gives you the right, you arrogant ass, to force your plans on anyone? To force other people to fund your “lifestyle”?

                      And if your “plans” are so fabulous, why the need for coercion?

                      The fact that you and yours have to rely on coercion ought to tell you something. If you were well-intended, that is.

                      But all you care about, you selfish loathsome cretin, is what you want. If others don’t want it, that’s too bad – right?

                      Sickening.

                      Some day, Clover, enough people – a critical mass – will reject aggression as the basis for dealing with other naked apes. I will probably not live to see that day. But I will work toward it for as long as I do live.

                • Yep, clover, I pulled the converter and modified the vehicle to use a great deal less fuel. How does that make it more polluting?

                  BTW, for whoever might care, I was asked to haul hot mix Friday. I have hauled it before and it was always for a company or private individual. There’s 20 trucks or so lined up so I’m thinking it’s going to be a public road thing. I ended up dumping 46 miles away on a huge ranch, the owner spending about $150,000 that day on hot mix alone. My govt. road cherry is still intact and I hope it stays that way.

          • “Editor’s Observation: The above nearly lucid text was, obviously, not composed by Clover. Who is attempting to pass it off as his own work. ”

            He can’t even stick to a subject or follow a train of thought. Since he apparently can’t maneuver past the massive documented fraud in the “global warming” scam, now he tries to change the subject to catalytic converters. Unbelievable.

          • Those cataclysmic converters are ruining every engine and sucking up very rare metals at a prodigious rates causing huge amounts of ecological and human damage. My ’77 Elco had a converter that was immediately tossed and nobody noticed but the drivers of the vehicle who couldn’t have been more happy to increase the gas mileage and power to a huge degree by getting rid of it. My little Nissan pickup that I drove flat out everywhere it went, simply ate the contents of it’s converter to the point it was driving us crazy with small pieces banging around in it. Luckily, it had removable ends and I took it off, removed them, dumped out what little exotic metal that was left. put it back together, re-installed it and never had to hear that racket again.

            Ah, to return to the days of stripping the factory exhaust off, turning the air cleaner lid over, installing headers and dual exhausts and pickup up a huge amount of power and fuel mileage. I wonder how burning so much less fuel affected the planet?

            I once had this idiot(later to be a hired badged thug in a local town)tell me I wasn’t getting more power or better mileage by turning the air cleaner top over (so it could draw as much air as it needed and mix with a much less amount of gasoline). He didn’t have enough sense to notice the tube headers or 2.5″ dual exhaust nor the aluminum intake. What do you say to someone who can’t understand you just made your car use 70% or less of the fuel it used “with govt. mandated equipment”? Nothing, just say And what do I owe for my inspection sticker?

            • You are right Eightsouthman. If a person like you did not know how or did not want to spend the money to fix a car so it was not pumping out gas out of the exhaust it would eat the converter. That is not the converters fault.
              Clover
              Jason Flinders, global warming is all about cleaning up the air. Burning less fuel and cleaning the air out of your exhaust helps to fix that. If we still had you and Eightsouthman in charge the air would be killing millions of people and the smog would be so bad that you could not see the road let alone drive on it. I guess you do not remember the thousands of lakes where the fish were being killed because of the acid rain. Again you are all brainless. I do not want to live in the world in which you want and 100s of millions of other people do not want that either.

              • “Jason Flinders, global warming is all about cleaning up the air.”

                More Clover stupidity. “Global warming” is NOT about “cleaning up the air” because CO2 is NOT a pollutant! In fact if you had any knowledge or intelligence you would realize that CO2 is necessary for plants!

                To understand what the “global warming” scam is really about you need to follow the power and the money. Control of carbon is a statist’s wet dream, control carbon and you control nearly all aspects of life. It opens up grand vistas of political control and confiscation of wealth. The promoters of this scam are also “coincidentally” making fortunes in carbon trading schemes.

                When you sanctimoniously drone on about the UNPROVEN, HYPOTHETICAL “millions of people” killed by “the air” you conveniently ignore the ACTUAL millions of people murdered and butchered by your Lord and Saviour, the State, on a routine basis. The pile of bloody and beaten corpses just doesn’t seem to matter to you.

                Then you careen into the non-sequitur of “acid rain” which has no bearing on the current discussion of global warming/climate change. Try to stay focused, if you can.

                Move your lips if necessary when reading this, it just might help some glimmer of comprehension to trickle into that dormant gray organ oozing between your ears: CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT.

                Try again, Clover, we can all use a good laugh.

              • Thanks Jason for showing your ignorance. You libertarians are so stupid it is easy. Try breathing 50% CO2 and you tell me it is not a pollutant. Libertarians try to hide behind their definitions. Just like Mithandr quoting a law trying to back up that he has the right to drive dangerously and like a jerk.Clover

                • Clover,

                  Really?

                  Imagine a pie chart. Roughly two-thirds of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of nitrogen, the other “slice” (a bit less than a third) is oxygen. The remainder – less than 1 percent total volume – is a combination of C02, argon and other trace gasses.

                  If the concentration of C02 were to double – and no one, not even the most frothing “climate change” advocates – is claiming that will happen – it would have no effect on the breathability of the air.

                • CO2 is a trace gas that plants use for food. 400 parts per million give or take. Why don’t you try to grow some vegetables in a CO2 free atmosphere Clover?

                  Furthermore the entire warming signal in the data comes from the adjustments the “scientists” made to it. If the data is not adjusted there is no warming signal. None. It goes away.

              • Acid rain, what a frickin idiot. So using less fuel causes acid rain? Please explain how this works. BTW clover, in case you want to get smart, use the old trick of brainwashing liberals, get a professional enema.

            • When the converter on my 75 Dodge Dart rusted off (followed not that long after by the rest of the car) a replacement would have been several hundred dollars so I put a straight pipe in it’s place and held my breath when it came time for the annual gunvermin mandated emission and saaaafety check. It passed just fine, and I repeated this procedure many years later with a 91 Honda Civic and had the same results! Might be worth checking into how much the platinum miners paid our masters to come up with this mandate. I’ve noticed more recently that now when you go for the inspection they look under the car to see if the converter is actually there; cost me big time too, my 03 Corolla flunked a year or so ago and it cost me almost a grand for a new exhaust system, becaus of course the whole shebang – pipes, muffler, converter, pipes again – was one welded unit and they couldn’t replace just the converter alone. What a racket.

            • clover, you dumbass, I took a car that was supposedly fine for “pollution” and made it run on 50% less fuel. So how is that polluting, using less gasoline? Lean the mixture, something you don’t understand and there is less unburned hydrocarbon produced. It doesn’t make a shit what you want to define as exhaust, it’s all basically a mixture of oxygen and fuel. When you mix in rare metals in the process, you get rare metals in the exhaust opposed to the more normal components being burned. It’s a win/win situation since you don’t drive a pump to make the thin the hydrocarbons in the exhaust. You’re using power to disguise the hydrocarbons you’re burning and burn more making this disguise. It’s one of the most stupid things govt. ever came up with. Of course big oil had no problem since they got to sell more fuel, another win/win situation for them.

              • Eightsouthman You talk about leaning out the mixture but I really doubt you can double the gas mileage out of my car. In fact if you made it a diesel you could not even get that. If you think that a very lean engine is good then go for it. If it is bad for your converter it is also bad for your engine. Eightsouthman I do have to laugh at you and Brent. Brent says that everyone will do the right thing to make air cleaner but not you. You have the right to remove clean air devices.Clover

                • Clover, are you lonely? You make up things and claim I wrote them, apparently just for me to correct you. Or are you just a despicable lying troll?

                • well, clover, here you go, talking out the wrong end again. Wow, that’s a lot of high-test methane. As you say, I have the right to remove clean air devices because my county in my state didn’t recognize the need for them. They’re not stupid though, they did realize I was making a much more efficient engine…..just like anyone with any knowledge did back when no computers would stop your engine for reasons of its own or reasons of those who programmed it.

                  Do you not see a pump, a parasitic device placed on an engine for a bullshit reason of injecting air into the exhaust so it will show less concentration of exhaust gases but do so at the expense of using more fuel? So using more fuel is the answer to less pollution? I’m not trying to hurt you but sit down and think about that.

          • Serious errors here Eric. the gases he claims the converters remove are not actually removed, just lowered in quantity. Vehicles release these ingredients because they use hydrocarbon based fuels. These gases are not the source of ground level ozone. Ozone is O3. O3 comes from the O in CO and the O2 in CO2 (2+1=3), reacting in the presence of sunlight to form O3. The O3 filters our harmful Ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

            The process of refining and mining platinum is energy intensive and causes its own pollution problems, polluting the whole biosphere. It leaves behind tailings that are far more toxic than those tailings from copper or lead mining.

            I have never seen a generator with a cat converter. Or any other anti-pollution gear found on cars.

            As the converters decrease the efficiency of the motor, they replace some of the pollution they are “supposed” to eliminate.

            It’s wrong to think someone other than clover wrote the above garbage. It’s full of misinformation, aka propaganda, and is full of words that clover could not possibly understand with his feeble mind. 2 or 3 clovers combined still can’t come up with educated writings.

            The mining of platinum and iridium is causing far more damage to the environment than the burning of coal, natural gas, or propane to generate industrial grade power to run the medical systems that keep feeble and mentally deficient clovers functioning enough to write rotten shit to publish on the internet.

        • Jason it is true that nothing can be done without the government at times. When you have a large enough group like Eightsouthman who feels he has the right to remove clean air devices then your ideal that we will all do the right thing falls apart. Libertarians really fall into the group where they have the right to do whatever the hell they feel like and it is up to them to decide if they are hurting others. As an individual they would be mostly right on pollution if it was only them but when 50 percent of the people feel that they can pollute then you can not longer breath. Jason you need a large percentage of people to follow changes that are needed or else the few that decide to make it better for everyone really does very little.Clover

          • “Jason it is true that nothing can be done without the government at times.”

            Certainly. Industrial-scale murder and repression, for example.

            But you’re not concerned about such things.

            You believe “our” government (speak for yourself) is benevolent and never “uses violence” against anyone.

            Except that’s what it does every day.

            Fundamentally, Clover, that’s all it does.

            Some of us are tired of it. Sick of people unwilling to deal with other people peaceably; unable to accept live – and let live.

            Sick, in other words, of creatures like you.

          • “Jason it is true that nothing can be done without the government at times.”

            Certainly that is the case, we can all see that. Slaughtering millions of people at a time en masse – possibly billions at a time in the future with new tech being developed – of course requires the services of government. You are correct, private-sector criminals are mere pikers who are not up to the task.

            So now we understand Clover a little better, he/she/it is enthusiastically in favor of mass murder.

      • Clover wrote: “….hundreds of millions of cars and trucks on paved roadways. If that does not affect our planet in any way I would kind of be surprised.” You’re driving your car. How is that not affecting our planet in the same way? I’m not understanding your point.

        • Susan, almost every bit of those paved roads are built by govt. So what’s her point? You’ll never glean her point, it’s cloverific, no logical discussion needed.

          As an aside to “all that’s good comes from govt.”, I’d say those highways really do affect the climate. In my life we have gone from having small, two-lane highways that have been replaced by interstate highways that are clogged to the maximum nearly every hour of every day.

          Almost all warm weather storms for this huge area of Tx. comes mainly from the SW going NE. Before interstates, the storms fairly much moved across the small highways. I’ve noticed in the last 3 decades(and probably before that, I just didn’t have continuous radar to see) or so, esp. the last 2 decades that now storms boil up and move NE but when they get to that interstate with its huge amount of heat from asphalt, concrete and the traffic, they’ll turn east and roll along it. If that’s not affecting nature I’ll eat your hat. Now we commonly see those storms travel 200 miles or more following the interstate highway.

          Clover’s definition of climate change then would be caused by govt. roads.

      • Well Clover, I’d fully expect you to be part of your “solution” rather than the “problem” you claim all others to be. Since you love Obummer that much and are happy for energy prices to necessarily skyrocket because he wants a global grabbermint, let’s hope you can afford to live at all, because you’ll be going back to the Neanderthal lifestyle – BEFORE they discovered fire. Obummer won’t let you live in his comfy place, nor will the Goreacle.

        So please, either get an education in these matters before spouting crap, or do as you espouse and prepare to freeze in the dark and eat your food raw and cold. No meat, because it causes Gorebull Warbling, somehow. That includes wildebeest, zebra, crocodiles et. al.

        Animal skins are a no-no, because PETA will whip you for that. Neither is anything such as nylon, because plastic is made from fossils, apparently.

        You just troll this site to disagree with everything. I bet you’re paid for it. If not – you MUST be fucken nuts.

    • Thanks for, sort of, defending Pope Francis. He’s not the same as his predecessors. (He sets a very good example in his own life, Benedict and John Paul did too, though maybe not in the same way; I prefer their clear doctrinal statements to Pope Francis’ media interviews.)

  20. It’s always “do as I say, not as I do” with the global elitists; and just when I thought this Pope had some empathy for us mundanes.

    • Here in Oz, a royal commission is investigating child abuse scandals. One of these scandals involves the present pope. It’s well known that priests and imams are child abusers, not to be trusted alone with children. I’m just referring articles that have been published in our MSM.

      • Hi to5,

        You know, I have always been a bit suspicious about the retirement of Benedict… my bet is he was a kid toucher, or covered it up. And the Church got rid of him, quick.

        The whole celibate thing is an invitation to perversion.

        The real deal, I mean.

        I am no prig; I have no issue with any form of consensual sex involving adults.

        But no normal man is going to be celibate for life. It is contrary to nature. Ergo, the Church attracts freaks. It is a haven, a cover for such.

        That this is not obvious to more people – especially Catholics – has always puzzled me.

        • One thing the Roman church has not addressed, and the lame-stream media have given them a pass on – it’s not just pedophilia, it is exclusively homosexual pedophilia. And Rome loudly condemns homosexuality.
          Maybe now that the Nazgul have legalized ‘homosexual marriage,’ some will take that route rather than the priesthood.

          • Hi Phillip!

            That’s a damned solid point.

            These frocked kid touchers seem to like little boys only.

            It’s quite interesting/revealing that they also rail against homosexuality.

            Kettle… black.

            I hasten to qualify this, however. I don’t believe that being gay means you’re into kids any more than being straight does. I mean, a guy who likes women isn’t usually interested sexually in little girls. And I don’t think a guy who likes men is necessarily interested in little boys.

            Of course, part of the problem is defining “kid” – and also knowing where the line is.

            I think most straight men will admit, if they’re honest, that they notice 16-year-old girls, especially if they look like 22-year-old women (and some do). But they would never act on it (if they knew the girl was in fact 16).

            Probably the same applies to gay dudes.

            But a 12 year-old? An eight-year-old? (regardless of sex).

            What sort of sick fuck “notices” kids?

        • Ironically, the Roman Catholic Church went to unmarried, celibate clergy about a thousand years ago, due to scandals. Priests where enriching themselves, their families and cronies at the expense of everyone else, using the authority of the church. Much like today’s politicians in many ways.

          So they thought they could solve it by unmarried, celibate, and poor clergy (that’s when the vow of “poverty” began as well). As you can see today, its only created a new scandal. It also shows how “banning” things won’t work (family, sex and wealth).

          The Roman Catholic Church does take on some married clergy today. In my town there is a married priest (who has grown children as well), who came from the Episcopal Church. They have also ordained older men who are widowers as well. Along with other lay people, both men and women who can do nearly everything a priest can do.

          Maybe taking on more people like that will help get the RCC get to the point where relaxing those bans, to be politically possible. The practice is extra-Biblical, so there are no theological problems outside of RC traditions.

        • You know, I have always been a bit suspicious about the retirement of Benedict… my bet is he was a kid toucher, or covered it up. And the Church got rid of him, quick.

          Could be, but much more likely is that he was on the verge of cleaning up the financial scandals that have been plaguing the Vatican Bank for the last decade. That would’ve embarrassed, ruined, and pissed off a lot of very powerful people within the global bankster cabal, so they had to get rid of him. Maybe they thought killing him (through some tragic “accident”) was too obvious, for whatever reason, so they set him up to be caught in some compromising position and blackmailed him into abdicating.

  21. Discrediting climate scientists takes three plots.
    Plot 1: Percentage of estimated station temperature data in the USA:
    https://farm1.staticflickr.com/299/20141893672_73b3bf5f7c_n.jpg
    Plot 2: Modifications to US surface temperature record:
    https://farm1.staticflickr.com/350/19961923790_05c165da88_n.jpg
    Plot 3: Raw temperature vs. published final modified temperature.
    https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3804/19961849558_100f12f153_n.jpg

    Data is being changed to fit theory. That’s not science.

    • I have read that they are dropping temperature reads from Siberia, and similar places, placing more emphasis on readings from ‘heat islands’ in highly populated areas.

      • Yes. Rural stations drop out and then are estimated using urban stations. Urban stations tend to be surrounded by pavement, machinery, etc. The official correction for UHI is miniscule. They claim they have to cool the past because thermometers weren’t reset correctly back in the 1930s. (BS) but then they warm the present and recent past because? I’ve found no explanation. I suppose it’s because people still haven’t figured out how to use thermometers to show what they want shown. Anyways…. they are correcting what should be random errors systematically. In a sufficiently large data set like the US surface temp record random errors cancel out. Basic science here. Either they are vastly incompetent or dishonest. There’s no middle ground for what they are doing.

          • Raw sets are still available as is the tree ring paper. Lots people are also saving their own copies of the data, papers, etc since the official folks have tossed science aside and are now playing Winston Smith.

            I mention the tree ring paper because the tree rings agree with the raw (before adjustment) temperature record. The problem is it doesn’t agree with the adjusted record so our dear climate priests cut off the tree ring data at 1900 and smoothed in their adjusted surface temp record for the rest.

            This is documented somewhere on goddard’s blog. There’s also a talk on youtube where a professor just says what they did isn’t science. It’s not. It’s old fashioned climate religion. Fool the masses into obeying the power structure.

      • Not just Siberia, PTB. 600 stations have been eliminated from mainland USA that are in dry areas at high latitudes, those ones that record cooler temps. To raise the temps you see. Can’t have facts getting in the way of fiction and improbable theories.

    • “more study needed.”

      Because if they just flat out say they are wrong, then so much for all the hype and hysteria.

      But if they need more data, that means they get funding for another year. WIN WIN!

      And don’t even question their computer models. The model is perfect, the software is perfect. Even though every other large computer system is full of bugs and errors.

  22. What bugs me the most is the ‘experts’ who claim that it is already too late to ‘save the planet,’ but that we need to embrace their control plans anyway.

LEAVE A REPLY