The Orange Balloon Deflates

Well-said, my dear Bevin [Hetero…. 🙂 ]

It’s just like the liberals we see today, who claim to be “compassionate” by using their vote to extort money from the responsible and productive, to be given to the not-so-responsible and shiftless.

Where is their compassion for the people whom they are robbing? They only have compassion for one particular group; just as they only oppose slavery when it is imposed by private plantation owners upon blacks, but they are perfectly fine with it when it is imposed by their elected representatives” on everyone else.

Well-said, my dear Bevin [Hetero…. ? ]

Dear Nunzio,

I’m old enough to be bona fide old school. First wave Baby Boomer.

Back when I was growing up, young people were taught that educated people addressed each other as

“Dear so and so”

They did so purely as a matter of form. It was what educated people with good manners did.

The term had nothing to whatsoever with spouses addressing each other as “dear”.

Apples and oranges.

Today, almost nobody still adheres to traditional notions of good manners.

Widespread ignorance combined with utterly irrelevant homophobia, has frightened most people away from using the proper form of address.

Idiocracy was a documentary.

Dude!

I mean: Dear Bevin, 😉

Ah, I know…I know. I too lament the demise of manners and the respect of polite formality.

It told me a lot about the quality of your character just seeing youraddressing of everyone with such a greeting.

In the midst of a society which has devolved to the point where greetings are often no more than mere grunts or ebonics, it is all too easy to dispense with the niceties which few appreciate anymore.

But your example certainly serves to show how important it is to maintian one’s standards even the more so in the midst of a clod-dom.

Of course, at this point, my reminders of heteroism are merely for comedic effect. (Hence the emoticon after the reference in the former post).

Morning, Nunzio!

Like the good Dr. Lector, I find discourtesy unspeakable. Unfortunately, it abounds. I often go to a local coffee shop to work and also to get out of the house. Often, there will be loud, obnoxious people who for whatever reason feel their conversation is so important everyone must hear it. The worst offenders are the ones who gabble loudly on dey sail fawns in a public place. I have to fight the urge to stuff them in the trunk, take them home and eat their livers with some fava beans and a nice chianti!

Dear Nunzio,

I really don’t fault anyone else for not doing what I do. I do it in part out of sheer orneriness.

I know that all the “regulars” here are good people, and I would never presume to impose my views on them.

But the subject came up, and it seemed appropriate to respond and explain where I was coming from.

Let no one feel pressured by me to change anything he does.

If libertarianism is about anything, it’s about individual decision making.

‘Morning Eric & Bevin!

You know, it seems that we have a very polite and considerate bunch here. But then, why shouldn’t we? I mean, since Libertarians tend to be concerned with the most basic rights and freedoms of everyone, it naturally follows that would extend courtesy and consideration to others.

Oftentimes, you can predict a person’s political and philosophical views just based on their manners and regard for how their actions affect others.

Statists tend to be in the middle. They’re the “As long as I enjoy a level of freedom which I feel comfortable with, and the system works for me, screw the next guy!”. So, their conduct is often predicated more on how they want to be perceived by others, than by their concern for others.

The nastiest, rudest, shove-it-down-your-throat crowd tend to be the leftists. Whether they be edumacated academians or ghetto-dwelling members of the free-stuff army, they are the “Just giver me mine and to Hell with you!” [Theirs = yours] or the “I’m so superior I will dictate how you live, but of course it’s for your own good”- and such philosophies naturally manifest themselves in their interpersonal communications- be it in public; amongst their own families, or even on internet forums.

Fava beans, Eric? Are you sure you’re not Italian? My mother often refers to them; I don’t think I’ve ever actually seem them though. Cook ’em up with some broccoli, olive oil, garlic and red pepper flakes, and they’ll taste even better than if you ate them with sheeple corpses! 🙂

Speaking of manners and courtesy…. I’ll be going to town today to run errends and go shopping- which means enduring the 350 lb. monsters with their screaming brats. I swear, one day I’m going to go berserk, and you’ll hear about me on the news. For now, maybe I can just content myself to ripping a few good farts in their presence.

Hi Nunzio,

I hope you understand that I am not arguing against the legitimacy of property rights (in land or otherwise). I am saying, as you have just shown, that the issue is complex, both in theory and practice. In theory, the home-steading principle seems to preclude the original acquisition of land for the purpose of leaving it in it’s natural state. So, if land is un-owned until put into use, it seems that the theory implies that land, when taken out of use, would revert to un-owned status. Please understand that I am not saying this is so, just that the seemingly objective, natural rights theory of legitimate land acquisition is insufficient to resolve all conflicts.

Which brings us to practice. To resolve these questions we invoke utilitarian arguments (how far back, who are the heirs, is it fair to the current owner, etc…), which should give us natural rights an-caps at least some pause.

Again, I am not arguing that property titles are illegitimate. But, just because many modern An-Socs seem hopelessly deluded and logically incoherent does not mean that we should dismiss the entire history of thought. After all, Rand was right about many things but she was also spectacularly wrong about others.

I’ve long believed that if you poke a utilitarian hard enough, he will eventually invoke a natural rights principle. This implies that utilitarianism needs a foundation in natural rights. It seems equally true that we advocates of natural rights also resort to utilitarian arguments when the theory seems insufficient. Utilitarianism, by itself, provides no coherent moral theory. It is necessary to invoke a goal to which utilitarian practices be directed. Without a moral principle the goal of the “greatest good for the greatest number” is no more legitimate than the “most benefits to the most gifted”.

I am not asserting answers here, I’m just thinking through complex ideas.

Kind Regards,
Jeremy

Hi, Jeremy,

Oh, I absolutely do understand that the views you are expositing concerning property rights are not your views, but rather just an explanation of what some believe; and so naturally [pun pending? 🙂 ) I hope that you understand that I am not arguing with you, but just stating my own initial thoughts to the ideas presented.

It is a very interesting subject, and I’m glad that you brought it up.

I agree with you, that forcing the question can reveal the ultimate foundation of the basis of our ideas, and even force us to confront those ideas- which is always a welcomed pursuit, as it leads to a greater understanding and either a strengthening of some of our ideas, or a rejection of them.

Ironically, it was largely the idea of property rights which brought me to libertarianism/anarchy, and yet, what we have been discussing is an aspect of those rights- or rather, the very foundation of them- but an aspect I had not heretofore considered.

Ciao!
Nunzio

Under the “only legit if it’s homesteaded/used” theory, I wonder if they would have a problem with someone who has 600 head of cattle and therefore is homesteading/using 1000 acres?

Or what if you didn’t have 6– head of cattle but of course, needed the land first, before you could acquire the cattle, to thus use the land?

And who would determine if your claim to that land were legit?

It seems, any time they make up artificial rules, it always necessitates the “need” for a government to enforce those rules……

That is why there can legitimately be no such thing as anarcho-communists.

Hi Eric,

I agree with you and would do the same if I could. However, think of your proviso. The same must be true of the owner before him, etc… According to the home-steading principle, title to land can be acquired in only two ways: mixing labor with un-owned land (transforming it from it’s natural state) and obtaining title through transfer from a previous legitimate owner.

So, according to the home-steading principle, no one could ever have gained legitimate title to an area of land for the purpose of leaving it alone.

You guys know me well enough to realize that I am a staunch advocate of private property rights. I believe that they are derived from the obvious fact of self-ownership and that they are necessary for human existence.

I am not arguing that land titles are illegitimate; just that the issue is a lot more complex than “we” sometimes claim. Most of us here accept the NAP and believe it is derived from natural rights, I do as well. However, this can lead to the belief that all disputes can be resolved on these grounds, they cannot. Utility, fairness and culture will always play a role. For instance, if it could be proven that the title to your land was stolen from the legitimate owner many generations ago, then the home-steading principle would imply that title should revert to the heir of the original owner. But, is this fair? Should this be what happens?

Nunzio,

An-coms do not believe that nobody owns the land they believe that everybody owns the land, which eliminates the possibility of legitimate private land title. This theory is absurd. No one person can use all of the land, and everyone cannot use a given section of land. If everybody owns something, nobody owns it. This belief precludes even the possibility of non-conflicting resource allocation. It is inherently absurd and clearly incompatible with human nature.

However, there is a tendency among free market libertarians to accept any existing property title as legitimate. Per Proudhon, it is not at all clear that the current owners of a landed estate, acquired through a grant from an illegitimate authority, and whose wealth was built largely on the labor of peasants, has a more legitimate claim to that land than those who worked it. I don’t know the correct answer. But, Proudhon believed that property acquired through collusion with the State amounts to theft. Seems pretty similar to what “we” believe.

Kind Regards,
Jeremy

Dear Jeremy,

You wrote:

“For instance, if it could be proven that the title to your land was stolen from the legitimate owner many generations ago, then the home-steading principle would imply that title should revert to the heir of the original owner. But, is this fair? Should this be what happens?”

Such a specific instance would indeed make it difficult to ensure justice.

However it’s important to note that the fault does not lie with libertarian rights theory. It lies with the governmental authorities that perpetrated the injustice long ago.

After all, had libertarian concepts of property rights been honored back when Custer and Sherman were committing genocide and robbing Indian lands, the current problem of land ownership would never have arisen to begin with.

I admit that libertarians are saddled with a theoretical albatross as a consequence. But the problem was clearly a creation of statism and statists.

Had all European Americans dealt with American Indians the way that William Penn did, by buying the land from them fair and square, the current injustices would never have arisen.

>>“For instance, if it could be proven that the title to your land was stolen from the legitimate owner many generations ago, then the home-steading principle would imply that title should revert to the heir of the original owner. <<

That would open a whole other can of worms. How far back would we be obliged to go?

I mean, suppose the original owner had farmed/homesteaded the land, but it turned out that he had killed off some Injuns to acquire it? And suppose the Injuns he had killed had in-turn acquired the land by having attacked another tribe?

And then even if a legitimate succession of ownership could be established, even in the recent past, that one owner may now have 80 direct descendants.

And what of the person who had purchased that land in good faith, and has a house or factory etc. on it?

We can't right the wrongs of the past, especially if we were not complicit in having committed those wrongs.

We CAN avoid being complicit in the present though- it is for this reason I will not patronize police auctions or tax sales. If the state had no right to steal someone's property, then I am not going to be a partner in crime by purchasing stolen goods from the state, any more so than I would purchase them from a junkie on the street.

Just wanna point out one thing here. White people claimed the NA continent was unclaimed wilderness. However, migrating tribes of people did use those so called unclaimed areas quite heavily. Didn’t stop white people from stealing it. Right? Homestead lies in the ability of the thugs in power to kill the people in possession of the area at the behest of the thieves. Hence the Indian Wars.

Hi NoneYa,

Yup, absolutely.

But it’s analogous to slavery, another vile thing done to people . . . who lived and died a long time ago. I would agree with anyone who suggested that a person who had been a slave is entitled to be compensated at the expense of the person who enslaved him. But is it right for the great, great grandson of a slave – who was never a slave himself – to demand compensation from the great, great grandson of someone who owned a slave? Or someone who just happens to be white?

I don’t see how. It’s true the great, great grandson of the slave may have benefitted somehow from the fact that his great, great grandfather had slaves. But it is hard to prove exactly how and – more relevant – there is no malign intent or action on the part of the great, great grandson. He just happened to be the great, great grandson of someone who did a vile thing. And I don’t believe in what the Germans style sippenhaft. Certainly not inter-generational sippenhaft.

Same with regard to the expropriation of land owned by the natives. The people who were abused have been dead for centuries, as also the people who abused them. It is nigh impossible to determine who, exactly, owned what in, say, 1750. My land was probably owned by a tribe at one point. But which tribe? Which specific tribesmen? Are their descendants entitled to recoup the land from me? I didn’t steal it from them. Neither did the people who owned it before me – from whom I bought it. Nor the people they bought it from, and so on – going back several generations at least.

I think there has to be a point after which prior claims no longer have force – just as there is a statute of limitations for the prosecution of some crimes. Otherwise, we could – and would have to – go back endlessly, to antiquity, to rectify the claims made by the descendants of people’s great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents… perhaps all the way to the caveman days!

Very well said, Eric!

And although the long-dead victims in the past can never be compensated, their descendants have been compensated in many respects to a greater or lesser degree by having had access to a quality of life and the enjoyment of rights which they would never have had in their native cultures.

i.e. the slave’s great great grandson living in an air-conditioned apartment and seeing his 10 kids supported by the efforts of others (essentially a reverse slavery); or the having a nice suburban home and driving a Mercedes; or being an NBA playa 🙂 and making millions, is probably preferable to living in a mud hut in Africa as some of his relatives are still doing.

Of course, that doesn’t excuse what was done in the past, but it does illustrate that their descendants have reaped benefits and opportunities from their ancestor’s condition, and still are, many generations later.

Those of us whose ancestors were not enslaved, or whose land was not usurped, really have nothing more, and in-fact are just as enslaved today by the government which did those things- so if nothing else, the term “equality” comes to mind.

Dear Bevin,

Trust me, I’m not arguing in favor of anarcho-socialism/communism. I’m merely responding to the observations about the debate on property rights that you and Nunzio made. Now, if the debate is merely about whether property rights can or should exist, I completely agree with you. Those who claim that all property rights are invalid are deluded, dishonest or both. After all, if I steal the ’68’ VW van used by Sunshine at the anarcho-hippie commune, I know that Sunshine will believe that I have violated her rights.

But, titles to property, especially in land, are complex in the world we inhabit. Most an-caps accept the Lockean home-steading principle as the basis for legitimately owned land. However, this basis is insufficient to solve all disputes. A coherent and generally accepted view of property rights is essential to any possible peaceful community. An-coms have no coherent theory of property rights. As Eric correctly pointed out, they believe that, absent the State, humans would simply “share” the wealth. This is an absurd and dangerous idea.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Dear Jeremy,

I hear you. Not to worry. I believe I know where you stand.

I wasn’t arguing with you. I was merely shoring up the case for property rights, for the record.

That’s the problem, Eric – you have no facts, you have illusions. I too would like to live in your world, but it wouldn’t, couldn’t, nor won’t happen. There will always be someone or group that will move in to do the very thing that we all hate. I just feel what we have is better than what we might get.

My set of “facts” tell me that it is better (not best, nor ideal, just better), to control what we have. Because if we could get rid of the government, we will create a vacuum and nature hates a vacuum.
I am the one who stands up against them, you supported me in your columns, but they are usually safe articles. How many on this site have tried to controlled authoritarian collectivism. Playing ‘Patty-cake with each other doesn’t count.
Gail, resident Clover

So where you are at Gail is that we need a government because someone might impose a government.

But that doesn’t explain the belief system around the state you have espoused. The flag waving and the rest.

If we have to live with a state then it should be stripped of religious and cult status. It should be seen as what it is, the monopoly on legal violence. That it is force. And that when someone uses the government to achieve X he using force. That government is a weapon.

If we really need this thing, then lets make sure everyone knows what it really is.

Dear Mr. Bevin; what surprises me is that no one, save Eric and myself, use our real names.
I came here because Eric is my friend, and he invited me. Now are you surprised?

Being polite to someone with opposite views (?) doesn’t mean that you are expected to agree or affirm those, it means that you ego is mature enough to accept those that are different than your own.

If you are reading my posts, you will remember I said, “if we agree on everything, one of us isn’t needed.” My ego is big enough to allow you to advocate your beliefs and your disagreement towards mine.
I’d like to ask you and your cohorts, other than bitching, what have you done to change the situation to be more to your liking?
Love the Clover!

Dear Gail,

I don’t know if you noticed, but you just confirmed that you already knew what views people here held before arrival.

So why the shock?

Re: “… other than bitching, what have you done to change the situation to be more to your liking?”

How do you know what I have or haven’t done???

What makes you so sure I haven’t done a lot to change the situation more to my liking???

I have been active in gun rights organizations such as Gun Owners of America for decades.

I have been active in anti-tax organizations for the same amount of time.

I was active in organizations dedicated to the defeat of zoning regulation in Texas.

But actually my proudest contributions have been something you dismiss as “bitching”.

You really shouldn’t wear your anti-intellectualism on your sleeve so prominently, as if it were a badge of honor.

Ideas have consequences. Change the ideas in circulation, change what is considered PC, change what is considered the Conventional Wisdom, and you will “change the situation to be more to your liking”.

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations…

This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.
— John Adams, in a letter to H. Niles

Did you really not know that?

Gail, this “What have you done to change the system” routine is getting old.

If we truly did anything to change the system, you would be the first in line to label us as criminals, because merely changing the system is no different than “changing” the communist or Nazi systrem.

The system needs to be eliminated, as the system is about tyranny/authoritarianism.

Merely working within the system/using the system to change the system is pointless, as it does not eliminate the tyranny/authoritarianism any more so than working within Stalin’s system eliminates communism.

You spend a lot of time and effort to change one little aspect of one law. That did not change the system, it just modified one little law. We still have arbitrary speed limits, and millions of people are still abused for merely exceeding some number on a sign- and in-fact, that is more true now than ever.

100 million people could each take on one cause for the next 1000 years, and it still would not effectively eliminate the injustice, abuse and illegitimacy of the system- it would just change the details.

And even if we could magically eliminate the system today, it would just be instantly replicated, because ultimately that system is a product of the hearts and minds of people- you know, the kind who possess human nature, which you think that that system is going to restrain/change (And hence, the real problem, these authoritarian systems are in reality religions…)- and the only way to truly hamstring/eliminate any such system, is through a change in the hearts and minds of people- and the only way to effect that is through the bringing to light of what the true nature of our problems are, and what the real solutions are- just as is done in Christian evangelism- the message may be a little different (although they do overlap in many regards) but the method is similar.

What did our Lord and Savior and the Apostles and the martyrs do to effect the chnages that we have all benefitted from? Did they petition Rome or organize armies or seek to reform the English monarchy? No….they made converts, who did what was right in their own lives, and thus stopped serving the forces of evil; and who in turn made converts of others who did the same. THAT is what we are doing.

YOU, on the other hand, have told us that you defend the system, be it right or wrong- even at the cost of your life or your childrens lives. WE refuse to serve the purposes of evil. If people would only do that, that alone would be sufficient to destroy the forces of injustice and tyranny- as tyrants can not exist, unless others are willing to take up arms in their service, be they “right or wrong” (And they’re always wrong! -People don’t need to be forced and commanded and conscripted to do what is right…)

Gail, your efforts to change parts of this situation we live is admirable.

My question then is for a “love it or leave it” and “my country, right or wrong” sort isn’t this a waste of time or at the very least, a contradiction of love it or leave it and my country, right or wrong?

If only everyone didn’t take everything so seriously- or at least didn’t care so much about what others thought of them and theirs, 90% of the problems we have today would not exist.

That’s one of the reasons I like to be “politically-incorrect”- it’ll show ya straight away who is a whiney little snowflake who takes every little thing oh so seriously, vs. who is just a regular person.

Amen, Nunzio!

I have a T shirt somewhere that reads:

But What About Hiuxtlopochtli?

No shitski Nunzio, everybody wearing their feelings on their cuffs. Last year a guy my age looked at me and said “Cool shades man…..retro” Only cause I bought em in 88 when everybody said they were cutting edge Marchon titanium alloy guaranteed to not break or warp…..ever.

What goes around comes around I guess. I’m a real slave to fashion.

Dear 8,

https://www.google.com.tw/search?q=ripped+jeans+fashion&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj859S3oYTUAhXCsJQKHSnfDN0QsAQIJA&biw=1097&bih=564

Most “people” are actually “sheeple”.

Now THAT (Idiots wearing ripped jeans) is the epitome of the slave class!

When I see people who have stooped so low, and who nlatantly advertise the fact, I think “There is a sub-human who is incapable of thought; the type of person who is responsible for the world being the way it is. There is someone for whom I would not even flinch if they were scooped up and cast into a FEMA camp”.

What’s even worse, is when you see parents dressing their little kids up in such uniforms of distaste and offensiveness.

The only upside to such a thing, is that such people openly advertise their stupidity and slavishness, so that one need not waste any time on them, and can avoid them like lepers.

I remember near the end of my dating career in my early 30’s, I had a date with this 19 year old chick; I go to her house to pick her up, and guess what she’s wearing? Nearly new jeans with a big hole in each knee…..

That was the end of that!

Nunzio, I figured holey jeans were easier to remove or at least those who wore them were easier to persuade.

I’d like to walk that holey jean crowd through the pasture in west Tx. People don’t realize how many grassburrs are thrown up by their shoes till they have a hole in their pants. I’ve had to stop and remove them from my legs when I had on shorts, one reason I rarely worked in shorts. Squat down and they have your calves and thighs stuck together.

eric, growing up in west Tx. the hypocrisy of Church of Christers looking down their nose at Babdis having a piano in church was fairly hilarious when those Babdis shook their kids head to keep them from seeing people doing one of the worst things ever……dancing.

To this day, in the next county over(Jones), the county seat has a law that prohibits dancin. No dancin in Anson is a common term here bouts. I always wondered what Anson Jones would make of it. His home was on Washington on the Brazos and where he died. He hated Sam Houston that tells me he was a deluded politician along with his non-support by Texans who saw him as a traitor trying to broker a deal with France and Britain to leave Tx. as part of Mexico. Who knows why a bunch of hardcore Babdis took over a west Tx. county but they did.

Maybe some fire ants would teach ’em, eh, 8?!

Nunzio, I have to give credit to Ed on this one and he said. Why don’t Babdix fuck standing up? Cause they’re afraid God might think they were dancin.

ROTFL, 8Man!!!!! 😀

Reminds me of that one:

What the difference between Jews, Protestants and Baptists?

Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Son Of God.
Protestants don’t recognize the pope as the head of the church.
And Baptists don’t recognize each other in the adult video store.

Hi Gail,

Just to clarify: I don’t believe that a Libertarian world would somehow bring about a utopia- I just think that it is the only political ideology which is fair and moral, and which leaves men free to live according to their consciences, so that those of us whose actions would tend to create a blessed environment are not artificially hindered.

But I do agree with you: It’s never going to happen. In-fact, throughout the course of human history, we see nothing but a steady progression of just the opposite. With each passing year, the size and scope of government grows more and more, so that now there is virtually not a place on earth where one can be free.

But look what the early settlers/Founders of this country did, against all odds, by having identified, believing in, and practicing many of these very principles. They made it possible for a brief period, after men in Europe had been dominated and reduced to serfs and peasants who were persecuted for living their consciences and worshiping their God, to be largely free for a time. And thus being free, we had a large segment of the population who practiced many Christian ideals under that freedom- the material benefits of which we are still reaping to this day, long after those ideals have stopped being practiced and/or were out-lawed.

Freedom can be used by the good and the evil alike- it is not a guarantee that only good will result or that there will be no evil- but it does guarantee that the good will be able to do good and not be forced to tolerate evil in anything over which they have control. And we see just the opposite where there is little or no freedom. It seems, the more tyrannical a place is (whether it be a country, or a US state like CA, NY or MA) the more evil seems to proliferate- both that which is practiced by the state, and that which is done by the citizens- while the ability to do good is restrained.

Wait, I’m confused. Gail’s daddy was Popeye? 😀

Sounds like!

Her cognitive dissonance is striking.

I wonder whether it has ever occurred to her that – as an example – Adolf Eichmann made the same case for his “country and flag” (uber alles) that she has for hers… yet she doesn’t grok the moral horror.

You are talking ‘apples and oranges,’ Nunzio. As I’ve already demonstrated, when I say “. . .my country – right or wrong. . .’ I didn’t say that I tolerate the wrong, I work to change it, I don’t sit around bitching about everything that is wrong. What I take serious is the part of the Constitution that reads “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defence, promote the general Wilfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unlike your mother, I am very busy, and I drive. I do all the driving since my husband is legally blind. He refers to me the as race car driver mario andretti. I tell him “Get in, Sit down, Hang on and Shut up!

In spite of my limited physical condition, I swim, ride a stationary bike for 5 minutes, walk slowly on a tread mill for 10 minutes. I wear a fitbit to gage if I’m doing as well as I can without killing the nerve system or weaken the muscles. I am an active member (meaning that I attend their luncheons and meetings) of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the Mayflower descendants, Colonial Dames. I do family history research for myself and my husband and at the present time I have 5 clients. I have made several trips in the last 3 years, one to Alamogordo NM, another time to Austin, TX, and the latest one was to Reno NV, where I drove through a blizzard, with heavy snow on the ground, and returned in the driving rain. At present I am planning a long trip that will go through Alamogordo NM, through El Paso, TX, down to Austin, TX over to Victoria, Tx, through to the East coast to Charleston SC, head NW to Chicago IL, up through the Dakotas. I will be the sole driver.

As to your statement about your mother, “. . .has absolutely no objections to being searched or scrutinized, and generally does anything she’s told to. . .,” doesn’t apply to me either. While I would be compliant on the road, if I am stopped by the police – I have never fought any of my battles on the side of the road, I take them to court. I would not permit either my car or person to be searched.

Ask Swamprat about the last time I got a ticket, and if you need any help fighting in court I would be happy to help you. In the meanwhile, take care and as long as you are a decent, legal
citizen, not in the process of a bank robbery or murder, you don’t have anything to worry about.

bevin, I’ve had the same experience, and no, you don’t have people knocking your door down “converting” to every point you make.

The only thing that seems to happen instantaneously is electricity and we all know that’s not an objective view either. The older you get the less sure you are about absolutes but libertarians can agree on some, taxes and death included with taxes being theft by the state and death being the inevitable part of life.

20 years or so ago, the phone rang and it was an old friend on the phone I hadn’t heard from in years. I answered and she immediately said “You were right”. Damn, said I, I guess a broken clock is correct twice a day and never thought I’d ever get that much acknowledgement.

Ok, I was just being facetious and we both laughed so I asked what I had been right about. She said “Vietnam, it all was a conspiracy”.

I was sorta shocked realizing not everybody by the mid-90’s hadn’t already knocked that off. My point being, changing opinions or anything else with people is very much an issue of time passing.

I think I offended my best friend recently when he mentioned Beck’s “Control”(he gave me a new copy). He has refused to use the internet up until now since his wife died and there’s no longer anything flowing in but Fox. He still subscribes to Republicanism and thinks the only reason any of us still have a gun is because of Rand Paul. Obviously we don’t agree on that subject. I told him I think Rand is a Zionist ass kisser and thinks more of Israel and got the standard Republican reply “You’re an anti-semitist”. I’ve heard this enough times to expect it now. That mindset of Republicanism(or being a Democrat) boils down to talking points, one of which is to accuse anyone who doesn’t support the militarized state of Israel is anti-semitic. And it’s mainly those who don’t do the internet but plenty still who do. The Zionist moniker just flies by their presence like a gnat in the wind. Reading the MSM, you’d naturally think everybody in Israel supports that immoral cabal just as we(sic) all support our wonderful govt. As Dewey Cox would say “It’s a long, hard walk”.

Dear Mssrs. Bevin & 8Man,

(tl; dr version right now, as I’m a-headin’ fer the pool!)

Funny, but after reading Bevin’s comments, I was going to say, not only are they true, nut: “A lot of times, one will not make an instant convert, or even seem to make any headway at all; but to those who are willing to see and or who care about things like justice and freedom and truth, the seeds are often sown in what we may say, and even though someone may mock us, they may also remember what we say for years to come, and see examples of what we have said being played out, that they otherwise may have been unaware of; and one day it may hit them”.

And then 8Man goes and posts an example of that very thing having happened! 😀

Trouble is: Some take so long to see it…. Which is better than never seeing it at all; but then there are the ones who see it, and yet fall for the very same thing next week when it happens again; and who revert back to their same old argument when you try to show them that the exact same thing is indeed playing-out again.

Sometimes I think that those who care, will eventually come to an understanding of the truth regardless of anyone else; and those who won’t, will not be affected by what we do, because ultimately it is the love and desire of truth, freedom and justice which determin whether they will or will not be on the side of those things, or enemies of them.

But even preaching to the choir is a worthwhile endeavor. I remember before the internet, when I thought I was the only one who possessed this particular mindset….

I’m not a social person, but it’s nice to know there are others, and share a little fellowship; and that no compromise is necessary.

Dear 8,

People seldom change at their core personality level.

But they definitely can change at the ideological level. I already mentioned my own renunciation of top down urban planning for “aesthetic reasons”.

That definitely was a case of time passing. It took time to overcome “cognitive dissonance”, and admit that it was irreconcilable with my professed libertarianism.

Dear Nunzio,

In the Internet Age, it’s hard to know when something one posted online will have an impact.

Have you ever Googled your own name?

Ripples on a pond mang.

bevin, you’re correct about changing at the core level although I think even that is changeable as you age and learn.

I was a big D democrat for the first part of my life. It was easy to get behind anyone who wasn’t a mean-spirited Republican. In fact, it was automatic for me although Democrats didn’t represent me either.
It was the 80’s that changed me politically into finally not voting. I was desperate for anything that politically represented me. Honestly, I didn’t think it would happen…..but it did and I’m grateful for it.

Ah, Mr. Bevin,

Years ago, when I’d Google my real name, one thing would come up: An article in which I was interviewed about an industry I was involved in years ago. These days, nothing comes up. I’m careful to guard my privacy (Or, more accurately, just don’t have the need to disseminate my info through the normal channels).

Interesting: Googling THIS name brings up some results, and they now have me wondering if those people took their name from an obscure reference to a fictional character, as I did- or if that is their real name?!

You really didn’t think that I’d have a Twitter account did you? (Who am I to be hob-knobing with the POTUS?!)

bevin, so true. Cops, to an astonishing degree, don’t see anything beyond their present condition. They don’t seem to understand their possessing a gun in this society could be taken from them. There’s already a BO law passed that denies guns to anyone getting psychiatric counseling. Cops were the first group to find out they were considered nothing more or less than a mundane according to that law. Now cops won’t seek counseling because they’ll likely lose their gun.

In a way, I can’t blame anyone for not seeking counseling because of this law.

I grew up with a gun in my hand. It’s hell to be disarmed. Of course I view guns as tools and use them accordingly. I’ve used a .22 to mark a ceiling to roof hole in a extremely tall ceiling(25 ft.). It gives you a spot on the roof to cut your hole for whatever need you have. I use a Garand to cut big limbs from tall trees and it beats $600 to have a tree removal do it. It’s tough to live in the country with no firearm and very few people do it. Of course country dwellers seem to have a better grasp on life.

Dear 8,

A law that takes guns away from anyone seeking counseling eh?

Talk about your “law of unintended consequences”.

Even someone cursed with a room temperature IQ ought to realize that will only discourage people who desperately need counseling from seeking it.

That only increases the chances of them blowing a gasket and shooting everyone dead in a “gun free zone”.

bevin, the crazy thing is they check to see if someone has a gun who seeks counseling, a really easy thing to do with cops. You’re not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer or the most stable either. Get that dog in a corner and make him feel defenseless….really smart. No doubt “new” psychiatry thinks its grand.

Exactly, Eric! It is for that reason that during the election, knowing that this would likely be the scenario (just as it was with Bush) I said that it might almost sorta be better if Hitlery did win, because then the conservatives would be appalled, and might finally say enough is enough- whereas if one of their own (supposedly) gets in, he’ll have carte blanch to do pretty much anything, and it will be O-K because “He is our guy”. And that is exactly what happened.

Gail,

You have advocated for aggressive war and mass murder. You pine for a globe spanning American Empire. You believe that the “spoils” of such rightly belong to “us”. In short you believe that it is OK to kill people and take their stuff, so long as the killing and theft is done by the State you so admire. When people challenge these “ideas” and point out that they seem incompatible with your professed faith and supposed reverence for the constitution and the rule of law, you respond by calling us bullies and cowards.

You claim that you”don’t like to be challenged or misunderstood”. Well, most people here believe that you are promoting evil ideas which deserve to be challenged. As to being misunderstood, I think we understand you perfectly well. If not, please explain.

Perhaps the triumph of evil occurs because otherwise virtuous men come to believe that evil is good. As I see it, you are promoting evil ideas, we are resisting those ideas.

Jeremy

Gail,

The Constitution is a meaningless old document that holds no water, as far as anything meaningful regarding our rights.

Like most Republicans, you have a moral fetish about other people’s sex lives. Do you know what the answer is? It is the restoration of property rights and the right of free association – which are two of many things that Republicans do not support.

Certainly, Trump does not.

Teach your kids whatever you consider appropriate; leave me (and my wallet) out of it. And keep your nose out of my family’s business.

Don’t want a transgender person to use your bathroom? Great! So long as you are the owner, you have every right to say no – or yes. This extends to allowing smoking – or not – and every other such thing on your premises. But Republicans do not believe in free association.

Gail,

You have your facts wrong. The “brownshirts” were the Sturmabteilung (SA) while the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) were a separate body, under the leadership of (first) Baldur Von Schirach and later Artur Axmann.

And: You make the common mistake of not perceiving there is no fundamental difference between national socialism and Soviet communism. Both systems are fundamentally authoritarian collectivist. Just as both the Democrats and the Republicans are fundamentally authoritarian collectivists.

I keep pointing this out – and you keep ignoring it.

Gail, you make it sound as though gassing the Jews was the only thing that made Hitler a bad guy.

It is not necessary to “smell the bodies burning” -the problem is: the establishment of collectivism/state power, and the minimalizing of the individual/family and the trading of free-market/community-based/family-based economies, for state-contolled institutions.

The same exact things are being practised here as were practised in Germany or the Soviet Union- from the heavy taxation, to spying, to children spending the majority of their waking hours in the care of strangers.

It matters not if these things come about by brute force, as they did in the USSR, or a combination of force and propaganda, such as in Germany, or voluntarily, through economic manipulation and pure propaganda, as is the case with many things here these days.

Our Founders knew, before there was a Hitler or USSR, that it is the love of liberty in the hearts of men, and the pursuit of that liberty in all of their dealings and institutions; and their unwillingness to tolerate compromises to that liberty, and their diligence to be ready to fight all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC who try to squalch that liberty, which keeps liberty alive.

A Hitler or Stalin is the merely the end result of a society losing that love of and diligence for liberty.

The wiser among us would so much as send our kids to a Girl Scout meeting, because just the uniforms and the agenda of those involved, along with laws foisted upon such organizations, are enough to repel those who care, and who don’t want their kids to grow up to slight the concepts of liberty for a little “fun”.

Hi Gail,

Are you going to answer my questions about authoritarian collectivism?

Why do you – a Southerner – worship the Constitution? Has the Constitution restrained the federal government in any way whatsoever?

Hello Gail,

You say: “I feel that our nation is based on the original U.S. Constitution”. I, and many others, have asked you to explain how your reverence for the Constitution is compatible with your attitude about war. Every US military intervention since WW2 has been unambiguously unconstitutional. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by the Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to delegate the war making power to the President. So, if you take the “original US Constitution” seriously then you should object to recent US militarism, rather than cheer it on.

Please note, I am not trying to prevent your views from being heard. Nor am I ridiculing your faith, beliefs and upbringing, I am asking you to support your statements. In other words, I am granting you respect by assuming that you can make such arguments. Nobody here has attempted to silence you. The fact that you can post whatever you want illustrates that fact. While you may not realize it, it is because you are obviously not an idiot that many of us wish to challenge you to think more deeply about the consistency of your beliefs.

Jeremy

Gail, I’m kind of keen on the Constitution myself, what with it being the only thing restraining the government from absolute tyranny- but it IS essentially a meaningless piece of paper, as you buddy GWB referred to it; because now that the people have lost both the love of liberty and the POWER to demand adherence to the restraints of government prescribed by that Constitution, of what good is it?

The owners of private property can protest all day long that it is their right to determine the criteria of whom they will admit and who they will reject as renters of their apartments, but when the activist judge laughs at them, and decrees that somehow code and statute law are superior to what is supposed to be the law of the land, where is the power?

Once again, by your own words, you prove the very things we are saying.

Any time someone takes up arms to do the bidding of the politicians who refuse to be restrained by that which they took an oath to uphold- be it against a foreign nation, or their fellow citizens- they are just rendering that document even more powerless, as they are serving the enemy.

Eric, I’m having problems with the format of your website. I am getting a narrow strip of text, which is difficult to read, and even more difficult to answer. I have search for a copy of the “authoritarian collectivism,” and I have googled, and to tell you the truth, I can’t make sense out of what you are asking me, or how I should reply. Please send it in an email, so I can print it out and study it.

I know what both words mean, but they don’t seem to go together, do they?

Gail,

C’mon.

I defined both terms and how they apply very simply and very specifically.

This is probably the fifth or sixth time now. One more time:

Authoritarian: The exercise of force or its threat by one person or a group of people against other people to compel their obedience.

Collectivism: The precedence of the group over the individual.

Now combine the two – and apply to the GOP and the Democrats and the Communists and the National Socialists (and so on).

Do you see a common thread?

The philosophical – the moral – difference we have is that I reject both authoritarianism and collectivism while you appear to support both of those things, so long as they are directed toward ends you personally approve of – such as “nuking them until they glow” and so forth.

Which means that in principle, you have a great deal in common, morally, not only with Democrats but also with Communists and Nazis (and so on) since you all accept that authoritarianism and collectivism should be the basis for society and government. You wish to surrender your self to the hive – to the will of the Queen Bee – whom you believe (somehow) transmutes the will of “the majority” – or (when it goes your way) the majority (or minority) you approve of. You support the use of force against people who want no part of the hive, who simply wish to be free to be left in peace.

I’d really like it if you would address the above – directly. I don’t want to hear about “old glory” or any other such.

Explain why authoritarianism and collectivism are moral when practiced by the right but not the left, for instance.

Dear Lord . . . oh, wait – you are swearing and not praying.

True, true, true – who decides? This is why we have elections, and the “. . .and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The person that gave me the courage to redress Congress was Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Surprised? I didn’t support her cause, however, I believe prayers should be in the home, and not in schools. So I didn’t totally object, and I didn’t realize she was an attorney until long after her cause and mine were history. But the very fact that she, single-handed took on the US Congress allowed me to believe that I could too.

Hi Gail,

So, our rights – our liberties – are up for a vote? Whatever “the majority” decides is morally acceptable?

“Petition the government for redress of grievances”… Why should a free man have to beg for what is rightfully his?

My teeth ache even more now.

Isn’t this amazing, Eric?

Gail is like a textbook model of the typical American today. Be they liberal, conservative, atheist, religious, rich, poor, whatever, they’re all just keeping the tyrants enshrined by constantly vying to get their interests and beliefs legislated.

Imagine, if instead of doing this, they all came together under the common cause of fighting the tyranny, and preserving freedom for all? Then we might have what the Founders envisioned- but there’s pretty much no chance of that, because people care more about whether their neighbor has an abortion, or about forcing their neighbor who would never have one, to pay for theirs. No one steps back and says “Maybe I should be free to do as I see fit with what is my own, and let you do the same with what is yours”.

Amazing… and depressing.

Gail is so like all the rest. My mom is like her. Reflexive incapacity to think in terms of concepts and principles and apply them to particular things. This weird cognitive dissonance that you can’t get them to see.

I’ve asked Gail at least half a dozen times now to defend the authoritarian collectivism of the right given she is opposed to the authoritarian collectivism of the left.

But then, she is not opposed to authoritarian collectivism.

Just when it is used for ends she disapproves of. Otherwise, it’s great!

But she will not concede this. Instead, she burbles out bromides about “the people” . . . Yes, her people.

It’s daunting. She’s not stoopid. It’s worse. She is programmed. Cognitively crippled.

Hey, Eric, at least Gail is consistent! 😀

The “petitioning Congress” and “voting” to determine how others should be ruled, is in keeping with her “might makes right” warmongering stance…. 😀

I gotta LOVE it when people use the “petition Congress” and “voting” to justify things which are totally out of context, because they don’t seem to realize that our government was never intended to have the power over people’s lives and property that it now has; so using such tactics to merely determine how government will rule over those things, is totally illegitimate, since it was never intended to have that power in the first place, and thus neither were we intended to have that power over others by extension.

Such a perversion of the ori9ginal meaning of such doctrines is uaually used by those who would have us believe that the US is a democracy- for that is how a democracy would operate- and the very thing that the Founders warned against.

What people like Gail fail to realize, is that such doctrines were established for and only pertain to the legitimate operation of government, and it’s limited sphere of power- and NOT that we can somehow use such things to allow said government to rule as a defacto democracy.

Dear Nunzio,

“Maybe I should be free to do as I see fit with what is my own, and let you do the same with what is yours”.

Cue Steve Martin… (beat)…

“Naw!”

Eric, when you think about it, EVERYONE who is not a Libertarian, is fine with authoritarian collectivism- as long as it is the brand of such that they approve of. And if we don’t like it we can “move to N. Korea or Iraq”.

They don’t fight authoritarian collectivism; they just vie to get it to enforce their goals and ideals.

Us Libertarians are the only segment of society which understands what freedom is, and advocates for it.

Funny mentioned Steve Martin, Bevin. I was just thinking: If Trump were to ever get called on the carpet for doing the diametric opposite of every single thing he promised during his campaign [Like if politicians were ever held accountable], I could just picture him saying “Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME!”.

bevin, teach you PARENTS well. Several times in my life I’ve been accused by older people of being “too honest”. So I should throw everything I learned as a child away?
Not to say my parents didn’t have their blind spots.

We(parents and me)used to listen to Paul Harvey every day at noon when I was in school(junior high, high school).
Paul beat the drum for war every day during the Vietnam “police action” but then as his son(my age)got closer to the clusterfuck he began having problems with it. It wasn’t lost on my mother….thankfully. I had already seen the light and was prepared to light out for parts unknown to avoid killing people I had nothing against.

This came about in the 9th grade when an assistant coach asked all the boys in civics class what they knew of Vietnam. He told us we should learn something since we’d be there soon.

4 years later not a single boy from my class, and it was the ONLY class in school to distinguish itself by not having one boy serve in the military. By the time we were seniors we’d smelt the rat and could identify it. The old saw about rich man goes to college and a poor man goes to work didn’t fly with us. There were no rich kids. We were all pore, but enlightened rednecks, determined to not go kill strangers for reasons we had come to see as pure blasphemy, evil as it were, doing the rich man’s dirty work. It was the ONLY class to have this distinction in our school. Amazing what thinking about something and learning what it was all about could do for just plain folk. We got no flak from our parents either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVaqZajq-I

Dear 8,
During the Cold War, including of course the Vietnam War, I was actually a hawk.

I was opposed to the draft of course, because that was obviously involuntary servitude. But I did believe that fighting the Communists was the right thing to do, as long as only volunteers fought.

But I was deeply anti-Communist because of what Mao did to my fellow Chinese on the Mainland. Millions died.

Later on, I realized the defects in my minarchist thinking. I realized the Vietnam War would still have been wrong even without the draft.

Live and learn. Let it not be said that cognitive dissonance prevented me from changing my mind. I did it. Others can too. No excuses.

bevin, good god almighty, I scrolled a mile to find a reply button. Screw you WP.

I can understand what you saw but communism, by it’s very definition, has never existed. It’s just another form of tyranny with the same old system of some having more than others all the way to the top where a few have it all, not a bit damned different in the endgame than fascism, socialism or any of those “isms”.

Funny how when I was 16 I wondered how my dad could be further out of it and when I was 40 he was a damned genius. I don’t recall telling him that in those words but I hope he knew that’s how I felt.

Dear 8,

Funny how when I was 16 I wondered how my dad could be further out of it and when I was 40 he was a damned genius.

“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
― Mark Twain

LOL!

I had a difficult time finding a reply link. Why doesn’t it show up after the post sent to me, instead of the bottom of everyone’s post?

Anyhow, I don’t guess that any of you will come down off the Hill of dreams to the real world, but since I like walking up to a brick wall, and beating my head against it – I will try again.

Now as Sophia Petrillo would say on ‘Golden Girls,’ Picture this . . . Let’s say you want to grow your own vegetables.
Would you through the seeds to the wind, or would have a garden that you’ve prepared for planting. Let’s say you’ve chosen the latter – this would be the U.S. Constitution. What does the preamble say: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.

Ok, so instead of throwing the seeds to the win, we will tilled, hoed, matured, etc. But wait, we don’t have anything to show for our work yet, each day we must tend to our garden – water it, pull weed, keep critters out, etc.

You guys are wanting to reap the rewards of throwing seeds to the wind, and I’m telling you it can’t be done. The best we can do is to keep the government under control. I shudder what life in America would be like if we didn’t have the government. To think everyone would just live happily with zero control is foolish.

Gail,

I’v tried at least six times now, but you won’t respond to my questions about authoritarian collectivism, which tells me you have no response.

As I expected.

Authoritarian collectivism is indefensible; a moral atrocity. You know this, even if you won’t admit it openly.

So, in order to partake of it – you are compelled to avoid discussing it.

You evade it, instead – with bromides about “old glory” and “we the people.”

I suppose you also regard “taxation” as something other than theft – and believe that government has the right to rule over people who have never consented to be ruled?

Words matter, Gail.

They must be used precisely, else they have no meaning at all.

Aaah – Nunzio, the crux of the matter is you will never get the freedom you seek, whereas, with diligence, I will be able to control the evil in the system I promote. A good movie to watch is ‘Mr. Smith goes to Washington,’ with James Steward. This my model of how to control evil.

Gail, when exactly are you going to start controlling the evil via the system?

You’re not doing a very good job of it, because it looks more like the evil are in control of the system and are using it to control the good.

Yes, the heart of man is desperately wicked…. -so you think that by having a structure which gives man the ability to amass power over every aspect of other men’s lives, that somehow that will restrain evil?

A glance at human history and at our present world might say otherwise.

When all are free, at least the good can be free to lead their lives in accordance with what is good, and not be hindered, harassed or persecuted legally by others.

When you establish ANY kind of authoritarian system administered by men, the good are prevented from doing as their beliefs dictate, while evil is enshrined.

My recent posts have discussed this in more depth, but you can not refute them, so you just keep stating the same things in perpetuity, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Dear Gail,

Control evil using the system?

How???

The system itself is the essence of evil. It is brute force coercion. It is some people saying “We’ve just established a government. You’re inside the line we drew on a map. So guess what? You now have to obey our rules and pay us money, understand?”

The system is nonsense. It is morally no different that a mob boss coming around and demanding protection money.

Don’t you get it???

Gail is quite clearly delusional (or trolling you all – or probably both).
The Gails of the world vastly outnumber the free thinkers and won’t be persuaded to think outside the box. If anything, the arguing serves to solidify their narrow views.
People have to wake up on their own terms…

Hi dirtybob,

Gail is very much like every single Clover I have ever engaged in discussion. They either cannot or will not acknowledge a moral principle and apply it to particular things. They seem unaware of or are unwilling to see the contradictions that riddle their “thinking.” Gail, for instance, touts liberty yet is very much an authoritarian collectivist. But she doesn’t regard her strain of authoritarian collectivism as morally despicable . . . because it’s hers. And won’t even acknowledge that it is authoritarian and collectivist. She – like every single Clover I have ever dealt with – invariably changes the subject, spouts non sequiturs; anything to avoid discussing the fundamental thing.

It’s not that they are stupid. It’s that their minds aren’t quite right. Quite human. They have an animal-like reactive/emotive response. Orwell called it “Duckspeak” – a noise disconnected from a conscious, thinking brain.

I do not say this to insult her. I think she and those like her are conditioned – and have been damaged. Purposely, by the system, to be exactly what they are.

I’d be much less depressed about it if Gail and those like her simply defended authoritarian collectivism as such. Gail, for instance, ought to say: Yes, I support the use of force to subordinate the individual to the collective; the individual has no rights but may be allowed certain privileges, which the collective may limit or rescind at its pleasure. I believe that certain privileges should be allowed, up to a point. I also believe that my personal beliefs and the beliefs of people who share the same should be forcibly imposed on others but that the differing views of others are vile and the people who would forcibly impose them on me are despicable cretins… etc.

But they never say such things.

I think because at some deep level, they instinctively know that to do so would unhinge their life-long programming and that could trigger a nervous breakdown.

Bevin,

They just don’t get it. It’s like there’s something missing in the intellect which prevents them from seeing the logical conclusions of what they advocate; or that no matter how long and hard what they advocate has been practiced, it just never ever works.

Even my own mother. My mother and I both abhor cell phones. She won’t have one, and I just have a Tracfone which I keep in my glove compartment, which gets turned on maybe 2 or 3 times a year.

I’ll see my mother and rant about “zombies perpetually fooling with their phones”, and inevitably, my mother will always say “They should never have allowed people to have them! Computers either! They should have been just for business.”. 😮

Next words out of her mouth: “But we HAVE to do something about that lousy North Korea; They’re no good; they’re communists!”.

LOL- They see no contradiction of logic in such things…..

And no matter how you explain it, they never get it.

Jesus said let the wheat and the tares[weeds] grow together, and that He would separate the wicked from among the just at His 2nd coming- but so many Christians don’t even believe that; they think that Caesar is going to do the work of God on earth now- at least, in the country where they live…but not elsewhere of course. 🙂 So we have authoritarian systems, which promopte thje very evils that such people are opposed to…but yet they are blind to this.

Dear Dirty Bob, Nunzio,

I agree. Many people really don’t get it, and never will.

So why do I argue with them?

Well, at lot of the time it’s to help third parties who might be considering the logic of free market anarchism, by providing them with common sense arguments that they can mull over.

Sometimes it’s because I suspect there might be a smidgen of hope that a person will be converted.

Once or twice that has actually happened with me online. So don’t rule it out.

Exactly, Bevin!

Some of the arguments that have had the best impact on myself, are the ones between opposing factions, where there may have been no hope of either side convincing the other, but to an outside observer, the one making the superior argument is obvious.

And what’s even better, is when the person in the right is of lesser talent or intellect, but yet makes a superior argument just by reason of the fact that he is right.

Truth prevails- and the more arguments are posited, the more opportunities the truth has to overcome the errors.

“It’s not that they are stupid. It’s that their minds aren’t quite right. Quite human. They have an animal-like reactive/emotive response. ”

On one hand people are made that way. it’s the design of the government run schools. The media. Etc. Intentionally done because the so-called elite see us as domesticated animals.

Then there is the idea that we are in a simulation. A role playing game of sorts. In all roleplaying games there are NPCs. Non-Player-Characters. They are controlled by the gamemaster or the computer. They are mostly simplistic but can serve many roles.

If we are in a simulation how do we tell the player characters from the NPCs? How does one know which one he is?

Dear Jeremy,

The problem is not that Gail cannot understand your point.

The problem is that she is unwilling to understand your point.

Your point is of course 100% valid.

The Chinese have an expression that sums up the problem.

球員兼裁判

Qiúyuán jiān cáipàn

It means

“A ball player [from one team] doubling as referee”

As most free market anarchists have figured out, the government policing itself is like the fox guarding the hen house.

Too bad We the Sheeple still don’t get it.

Dear Bevin,

So nice to hear from you, what a wonderful expression. It sums up the problem in a way any honest man should understand.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Dear Jeremy,

It was good to see your name in the comments section here again!

I myself drift in and out. I have to leave once in a while, otherwise I would turn into a vegetable in the EP Auto’s garden.

Dear Eric,

As I noted earlier.

The problem is not that Gail cannot understand your point.

The problem is that she is unwilling to understand your point.

Her mind has already raced ahead and realized that you have her checked, and will have her checkmated in another move or two.

So in order to avoid losing the argument she walks away and changes the subject.

If I understand correctly your meaning of Authoritarian collectivism and/or Coercive Collectivism, you believe that you can’t have everything you would like and you desire to have no controls over your life. Do I have that right? I find this idea the same as abortion. How so, you may ask? Well, the ‘Pussy Parade’ gals want free rein to kill their unborn at will, without any regards to the human that they are preventing ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Who knows, it has worked for them, maybe it would work for you guys too. But, Authoritarianism is not the same as Collectivism, despite what some libertarian ideologues may tell me ;).

Gail,

You clearly do not understand.

Libertarian morality is based on something called the Non-Aggression Principle. It means, simply, that no one has the right to use or threaten to use force against another person except in self-defense against force.

So, yes – you’re right. I do desire to have no controls over my life. That is to say, I deny that you or any other person has any moral right to interfere with me or in any way control my life unless in self-defense against my having first used or threatened to use force against you.

And for no other reason.

Like most right-wing authoritarian collectivists, you are concerned with abortion. Well, I’m not having one anytime soon, so bugger off!

I also don’t own anyone’s else’s pussy – or their flesh. So I have no right to grab their pussy or otherwise mess with it, unless of course I am invited.

Gail, “Libertarian morality” is a misnomer. Libertarianism is not a religion/value system.

It is just a political philosophy which if practriced, would ensure that we are all free to practice what ever moral beliefs we care to, in so far as they affect us and ours and our property and those who may voluntarily associate with us.

This abortion rhetoric is nonsense. I don’t want the government in anyone’s womb. And whether abortion is legal or not, there are always those who will have them.

And it’s very ironic that you see the state as the protector of the unborn, when in-fact it is the state which has legitimatized abortion, and even restricted those who would protest the practice; and it is the state which forcibly takes YOUR money, and uses some of it to even promote and pay for abortions!

You’re so worried about the unborn- which is really no one else’s business, other than the person who owns the womb it is in, and the guy who contributed the spooge- why aren’t you as concerned with the millions of innocent men women and children whom the state has murdered, maimed or oppressed in it’s endless wars, be they wars against foreign countries, or “wars” on our own shores, like the “War on Drugs”- or just the authoritarian culture which does not hold it’s armed goons responsible, even if they shoot an old lady in the face.?

The state can decide what or what doesn’t happen to your womb; Who pays for it; What constitutes marriage; the terms of marriage; how you discipline your children; how you educate them; how or if you medicate them; yada, yada, and you seem to think that they are somehow doing the work of God on earth?!

And just think Gail, how many FEWER abortions there would have been had the state not been using our money to fund Planned Parenthood and host of other programs and services, and outright funding MILLIONS of abortions.

You’re always saying “get involved” and how the state is all about enforcing some collective moral agreed upon by a majority, on others- well here’s a perfect example of the majority supporting something which is contrary to your values…and forcing you to pay for it. How do you like it?

Nunzio, the state’s actions say volumes. I read an article today that UC Davis is putting the morning after pill in vending machines. Meanwhile our dear leaders keep trying to make vitamins difficult to get.

Brent, It seems that Gail fails to notice such things. She thinks that in exchange for giving the state a few of her adult kids lives to kill some foreigners, that the state will prevent some slut from bringing her future hoodlums to the light of day. I guess she ought to rethink that, eh? 🙂

It’s really telling though, but not surprising at all, once we understand the true nature of the state- any state. They are the merchants of death. (And much more so than some skank who kills off her baby before it’s sprung, rather than after.)

Eric,

Remember the first goal of all gangs calling themselves government is to sow the seeds of chaos aka law and disorder!

David Ward
Memphis, Tennessee

The true problem with government is the state of men (generic term). Getting rid of the government, if at all possible, would not get rid of the hearts of men. Yours may be pure, which I doubt that anyone is 100% so, there is a touch of larceny in us all. It is much like ‘liars,’ we all hate liars, yet we all lie. Our personal lies are just more humane, than others.

I’m not allowed to quote from my areas of belief, but each of you can. Sheesh@!

Ah yes, we need to be ruled over by evil men who steal from us and oppress us so we won’t be ruled by evil men who steal from us and oppress us.

Never quite understand the difference except in the former the people don’t know they are evil oppressors and go along with it willingly.

Numzio,

How’s this for a story. Paraphrased from the New Testament.

Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights (not sure why 40 of anything is important but it appears to be a recurring theme in the bible). During this time Jesus was tempted by Satan to throw in with his lot. One of the temptations was if Jesus would renounce his Father and join Satan, Satan would give Jesus dominion of all the kingdoms of the World. Wow! That is really really tempting isn’t it? My take is this. You can’t give what you first do not have. In this passage Satan plainly states that all governments are evil and under his control/dominion/tutelage. This alone above any other passage in the bible including the hideous book of Romans should let any person professing to be Christian to not support any government and not to place any trust in them.

This is not the only place in the bible that warns against the rule of man over man. It is also clearly stated in the book of Exodus that the god of the Hebrews stated rule of man was not needed. However, after enough whining by the Hebrews he instituted a King but with a heavy warning.
The King will take the best of your fields, of your herds, of your sons for his armies and daughters for his sluts. On the day that happens DO NOT COME CRYING TO ME!

‘NUFF said.

David Ward
Memphis, Teneessee

Notice Alert! The following is a disclaimer!

I am not Christian, Hebrew, Jewish, Muslim or any other religious denomination. I, also, do not play one on TV.

I do believe in a creator. However, I as a creator of more than 100 pieces of music, believe the creator is much to busy to concern himself with one little speck in the universe. Just as I can’t remember all the songs I’ve written and forgotten. Notice my output is not nearly as prolific as the creator of all things! LOL! And yet I do not worry about the song I’ve lost.

David Ward
Memphis, Tennessee

Well-said, David!

And in multiple places where God says “Ye shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, and not turn to the right hand nor to the left…”

If we support/do service to ANY authroitarian government, which is a competing legal system/author of ordinances and statutes, we are enforcing that competing system upon others as well as ourselves, and that is why, conversely, the state has always persecuted Christians, because we acknowledge and obey a different God, and not the god of state (Of course, that is not so true for many Christians these days though).

And that is why, this country was established by those seeking religious freedom, and why Christians traditionally have been the ones opposed to state power/the state over-stepping it’s constitutional bounds in America- while the liberals tend to be atheists/agnostics, who often have no problem with the imposition of any type of authoritarian moral code (legal system)- unless, of course, they happen to have the good sense to be Libertarians. Many non-Libertarian atheists are just content to use the state to keep the “church” off of their back, and don’t seem to mind when that state prescribes it’s own value system and enforces it.

You are absolutely right, Eric. The government attacks the ‘control freaks,’ as the police force, mental institution, etc.

So shall I say “It is necessary to have some order to our lives?” Because it is important. At the same time there has to be checks and balances, which is what our forefathers set up. (at least mine, I don’t know if any of the rest of the posters can trace their family back to the signers of the Constitution, or not. I can!)

We the People are suppose to see that these checks and balances do not get lop-sided or out of control. If we sit around doing nothing but complaining, we will find ourselves overtaken – which almost happen – usher in Donald Trump and with the grace of God he will bring this nation back to sanity.

BTW – you guys are in the wrong section of the nation to get any real privacy. Texas has lots of wide open spaces, Nevada too, and don’t forget Alaska. Some states are worse than ever – Virginia being one of them. Nunzio has made an attempt to get away from it in Kentucky, he just didn’t go far enough.

Your Clover

Hi Bevin,

I’m always amazed that Statists use the “people suck” argument and don’t realize that it is an argument against, not for, government.

In fact, even the Bastiat quote doesn’t go far enough as implicit in his observation is the assumption that there will be a similar distribution of “bad people” in government as in the general society.

But, power attracts bad people and greater power attracts the worst people. As both of us have noted, there will always be bad people in society. However, these people are outliers and, without legal protection, seeking gain through force is dangerous and costly, which serves as a natural check on sociopathic tendencies. However, with government this natural check does not exist as the cost and danger is not borne by the person wielding the power.

Even as a minarchist, Hayek clearly understood the problem. https://fee.org/resources/the-road-to-serfdom-chapter-10-why-the-worst-get-on-top/

But, it is Higgs who absolutely decimates the “people suck, therefore we need government” idiocy.
https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/libertarianism/if-men-were-angels/

Jeremy

Dear Brent,

So true. Bastiat nailed it long ago.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?
— Frederic Bastiat

Yet these militant ignoramuses still don’t get it.

bevin, I’m reminded of Rock Radio when the Hitleresque bureaucrat told his underling “You see that’s the great thing about being the govt. If there’s something you don’t like you simply make it illegal”.

Those two lines should be enough to convince anyone “their” govt. is little more or less than a collective of tiny tyrants out solely for themselves.

The lie of the Gulf of Tonkin incident should be proof enough to anyone there is no real journalism on a national level. No doubt Gail is still living that lie…..and will stick to it to the grave.

Dear 8,

Yep. Unless you are on the mailing list for the annual Bilderberg meeting, it’s not “your government”, it’s their government.

Here’s a practical example, Gail:

Just humans: I would be free to not have to tolerate homos. I could refuse to serve them in my business. I could refuse to rent an apartment to them; I could refuse to bake a cake for their “wedding”; I could refuse to have one teach my kids.

Enter government: They decide that fags are a special class of people who are to be given special rights and privileges, and so enforce their dictates upon me. Now I must either suffer persecution if I want to resist evil, or give in and accommodate evil because of the coercion of government.

And you think that this is good?

And regardless of where one might stand as far as faggotry goes….I’m sure that all here would agree that we should all be free to determine what we will accept or reject in our own lives and dealings, and to act accordingly with all that affects our property and anything else under our jurisdiction.

If I have a restaurant and don’t want to serve fags, and Eric has a restaurant and wants top serve everyone, and if SRV (from another thread) has a restaurant and wants to serve only fags, that may be tolerating some evil- but under your government, we are all restrained from exercising control over what is ours in accordance with our beliefs, and therefore must all accomodate evil….or face persecution in the form of being deprived of our liberty and property, and the ability to do as we deem proper.

How is THAT a check on human nature? How is THAT a restraint of evil? It is the diametric opposite! Yet, this is what you support, and with the justification that it somehow restrains evil and human nature.