A Clover Named “Jerty”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I received – via email – the following missive from a Clover named Jerty ( Jerty12@gmail.com ) who writes that my “articles reek of stupidity.”

Which is interesting given what he writes next, as follows:

How will we progress as a civilization without implementing new floors on which business should operate? This ridiculous notion that companies will innovate without the invisible hand is outdated enough that even Adam Smith would not agree with your points.” 

I assume Mr. (Miss?) Jerty means by  ” . . .implementing new floors on which business should operate” various government fatwas imposing these “floors” by force.

Which is utterly contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” by which he meant market forces.  Which do not require physical force.

Free people freely buying and selling among themselves – without “new floors” being “implemented” that are by definition contrary to the invisible hand of the market.

And they ask me why I drink . . .

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets – they’re back!  are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. Also, the eBook – free! – is available. Click here. Just enter you email in the box on the top of the main page and we’ll email you a copy instantly!



Share Button


  1. Obviously Jerty does’t understand that rules of the game were defined long ago. Not by organized government, but by myths and legends. I’m reading Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. It’s a pretty deep self-help book, something I wish I had available when I was 20 (but would have ignored, because that’s what you do when you’re 20). His primary point is that the rules of society aren’t created by institutions, the institutions only reflect rules that are part of the root of our survival as a species. For example, the reason we punish lying, cheating and theft is because it harms others and society, not because some law-giver decreed those actions bad. Sacrifice for the greater good of society is another deeply ingrained reflex, again coopted by government, which leads to resentment and fear instead of desire to help our fellow man.

    Now that we allow massively scaled institutions beyond any human comprehension, ethics are at best questionable. It’s a shame that business has decided that cheating (understanding that artificial rules are still rules) is acceptable. Of course now the artificial rules are selectively enforced, so we see the slap on the wrist fines imposed on Wells Fargo and Thor’s hammer brought down on VW. A billion dollar fine on a bank is nothing and clearly sends a message that as long as your shareholders are happy it’s OK. Who cares that the culture of Wells is what contributed to the Great Recession? How much more harm was done by the banking sector in 2008 compared to VW?

    Speaking of VW, I’m starting to see Jettas (gasser obviously) with rental/fleet plates. At least they’re selling vehicles to someone. What a waste.

  2. Which leads me to another thing I need to remember to tell people when discussing the feasibility of using time-travel to change the past. I can tell you it will never happen, primarily because it already would have.
    The prime paradox of any attempt to do so lies in the probability that nearly all events of the past led up to the creation of the means to do so, therefore, any attempt to alter any prior event, would negate said ability.
    Furthermore, since any attempt, even long after the creation of said ability, would be the result of prior knowledge of the event we wish to change, changing the nature of the “target” event would effectively change our prior knowledge of that event, again, negating the ability to change it. Those who argue that we, as subjects of a “time event change” would have no knowledge of the “eradicated event”, also presumes that the perpetrator of the “event change” must retain knowledge of the “eradicated event”, or otherwise the event change would have no impetus. In other words, without the occurrence of an undesirable event, there would be no desire, purpose, or reason to change such an event, thus, any attempt to change a past event would actually negate our ability to do so.
    Now, from a purely hypothetical point of view, if such an ability does become possible, then, it already has, and we just don’t know it yet. In which case, nothing we do to seriously influence the destiny of humanity, positively or negatively, will matter, because someone in the future will have already negated, or propagated an event to influence their present-day reality. This, btw, is the fundamental basis for the belief in predestination and fatalism (God being the time traveler and event manipulator), neither of which do I subscribe to.

    Any thoughts?

  3. Eric
    Jerty is just another common bully politician wannabe like M.A. He lacks the knowledge, confidence, and ability to make any constructive contribution to society, and therefore spends his efforts twisting the words of others in a vain attempt to convince those of us, whom are confident, educated individuals, that we are somehow wrongs in our thoughts, words, and actions. “Let him rave on so that all men know that he is mad!”
    -Yul Brynner- Yes, I know I just quoted the “antagonist” from a hollywoods film, however, that doesn’t make the statement any less applicable. Additionally, if we were to exercise “hillbilly justice” on his sad piece of worthless flesh, we would be no different than he, although the day would probably go a lot smoother for untold numbers of other people, lol!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here