Why Conservatives are Liberal

71
2884
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The other day, I “got away” from an armed government worker.

I was “speeding” – that is to say, driving faster than the government decrees to be “safe.” Rounding a curve,  I encountered an AGW. In the rearview, I saw him brake and knew he was going to U-turn after me, in order to punish me for harms I hadn’t caused but for rules (and authority) I had affronted.

Rather than stop, I “fled” – and successfully “eluded” the AGW.

I use the air quotes – so to speak –  to make a point about the cognitively dissonant language most of use without thinking about it much. This is especially true of conservatives – who can be ferocious in defense of what they regard as their “rights” – gun rights, for example – while practically bear-hugging their supposed ideological foes on the left when it comes to shredding rights as such.

I texted a conservative friend after I was safely home. He was enraged by my story – and actually said he would “laugh for years” if I had been arrested and jailed for “eluding.”

This may be the end of our friendship – and I told him so.

I also told him – in the hope that it might register with him – that I would not laugh at all if he were manacled and caged by AGWs for harming no one but “illegally possessing” certain arbitrarily illegalized firearms, of which he has a plethora.

That I would cheer him for ignoring and “evading” such laws.

That I would defend him, if he defended himself against AGWs who attempted to enforce such laws upon him.

It didn’t register.

He continued his text fusillade – arguing that my driving faster than the government (and he) feels is “safe” constitutes a grave threat to his children and this justifies the enforcement of speed laws and also makes me a very bad person for violating them and a criminal, basically, for attempting (successfully) to avoid punishment  . . . for the harms I didn’t cause.

I pointed out that I could just as easily – were I a liberal “gun grabber” – express my dread and loathing – my feeeeeeeeelings about – his massive collection of guns, including a small arsenal of high-powered and very scary looking “military style” rifles, many with “high capacity” magazines that – surely – no one neeeeeeeeeeeeeeds. And which “someone” might use to cause my children – if I had them – harm and so ought to be pre-emptively taken out of circulation, in the interests of saaaaaaaaaaaaafety.

Or rather, my feeeeeeeeeelings about saaaaaaaaaaaaafety.

Note that neither can be objectively defined.

Unlike harm caused – which is a clear, inarguable standard because it is objective.

He replied that I “cannot control” all the various variables out on the road, which renders my fast driving ipso facto “unsafe.” With the implication being that he can control those “variables” when it comes to his guns.

Really?

What if he accidentally drops one of the guns he is always carrying – and it accidentally discharges and someone is harmed?

This could happen. Just as it could happen I glance away from the road for a moment and in that moment, fail to see a child who ran into the road in time to avoid road-pizza’ing said child.

What if he forgets he had a gun in his coat pocket and a child discovers it?

This, too, is at least a possibility.

What if he has a bad day and gets really angry and loses control of himself and goes on a shooting rampage?

Again, it is not impossible.

Just as it’s possible my driving faster than he feeeeels is saaaaaaaaaaafe might  or at least could result in loss of control, striking another car – etc.

But for the conservative, there is great confusion – deliberate blank-out – over the difference between what if – and actually did. The former is used by liberals and conservatives to justify interfering with – and punishing – people who haven’t actually caused any harm.

But conservatives don’t see the danger.

Which is why conservatives have such trouble with the concept of rights – which they have never understood – and so, of course, cannot intelligibly articulate them much less defend them.

My friend’s record of responsible gun ownership, his lack of any criminal record – the objective fact that he has not caused harm – doesn’t not matter . . . to the gun grabber. Just as my objective record of decades of accident-free driving (and training and experience behind the wheel at least equivalent to my conservative friend’s training and experience with firearms) do not matter to him.

What if? … he eructs.

Someone might! … he frets.

These are precisely the tacks used by the left to restrict/rescind the gun rights of conservatives like my friend – and to punish him for end-running or ignoring, which arouses his indignation.

Rightly so, as I told him.

But he is only bothered when those tacks are used to rescind the rights which are important to him. He is an absolutist when it comes to “gun” rights . . . a full-throated Libertarian, who seems to grok that his rights aren’t negotiable, especially on account of what if and someone might.

But he is a typically glaucomic conservative with regard to his view of rights as such.

Such as the right to be free to travel without being accosted by an armed government worker for not having caused harm to anyone.

He is not only indifferent to that right but hostile to those who object and take measures to defend their rights – regardless of the law.

This is why conservatism is a losing political/moral philosophy. It has no principles; only certain beliefs – in guns, for instance. Because it likes guns. It does not like “speeding.” Or the consumption of various arbitrarily illegal drugs – another lip curler – and cheers when those who ignore such laws are manacled and caged . . . for not causing any harm to others.

Most conservatives also fetish-worship armed government workers – the enforcement division of the government they say they distrust and seek to “limit.” The apotheosis of cognitive dissonance.

Conservatism, in sum, is just as bullying and collectivist as liberalism – only not smart enough to understand it shares the same principles.

. . .

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:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

 

Share Button

71 COMMENTS

  1. DAAAAAAYUM!!! I should hope that that’d be the end of that friendship, Eric!

    This is the problem we as Libertarians/anarchists face with friends and relatives; we live in a society where 99.9% of the people are boot-licking statists- and their devotion to the god of State trumps every other loyalty; logic; justice; everything.

    Even one’s own parents….

    I remember a while back, my sister got a ticket for coming out of the apartment complex’s driveway where she lives and going into the Post Office parking lot not 10′ away. Rather than being incensed at the injustice of an old lady being robbed and interfered with by armed goons for something that could under no circumstance ever “endanger” anybody else, my mother just said “Serves her right! She should have worn her seat belt, being it’s the law.

    This is exactly what I have been talking about, when I say there will be no revolution for liberty, because the enemies of liberty are virtually everyone, except for a tiny, tiny minority. Sometimes we don’t see these things until it comers down to a personal incident like the one you describe in this article- but if you look a little deeper, you’ll see it all around you, in almost everyone you associaite with.

    The better of them may have a few specific things which they care about, for which they will advocate some principles, and maintaining of rights, and resistance- but other than those one or two special areas of interest, they couldn’t care less about the overall maintaining of liberty for all- not even for their own- much less those with whom they may disagree.

    A great point to make to that “friend” [Not that it would have mattered- logic and reason have no place in blind religious fervor] would be using the example of the ever-changing speed limits: “So, when the speed limit on I-81 was 55 years ago, I was endangering people by driving 65 and thus worthy of punishment; but now that it’s 70(?) it’s perfectly “safe” to drive at that speed because the sign was changed? And conversely, in town, on the main drag where the limit used to 35 or 40, it was perfectly fine to drive at that speed; but now that the limit has been lowered to 25, I should be punished for driving that same speed which was perfectly fine for decades? Even though they are the SAME roads! All that has changed are the signs, and the “LAW”…”

    Conservatives love the state, because they see it as the punishers of ‘criminals’ and the immoral.
    Liberals love the state, because they see it the punishers of conservatives.

    No matter which side wins….we who love liberty and just want to be left in peace, lose. 🙁

    This is why I (and I suspect most anarchists) don’t have a lot of friends or bother with relatives much- how can you be friends with the friend of your enemy? The friend and ally of your enemy, is YOUR enemy! This incident just illustrated that.

    • Morning, my Wop friend!

      Yeah. I think your analysis is spot on. Brent and others here have related similar experiences. At work. With our male friends; with women. We are outliers.

      I have never really grokked people who can marry people with whom they profoundly disagree on moral (which determines political) views. With friends, it’s less intimate – and one can simply avoid discussing third rail subjects. But I incline increasingly toward the view that such friendships are tenuous at best.

      In the case we’ve been discussing, I find myself more and more troubled by the comment about laughing had I been arrested and sent to jail. That indicates a desire – a wish – that this had happened. And annoyance that I “got away” with it.

      What sort of friend wishes that on a . . . friend? Isn’t the point of being a friend that you’ve got your friend’s back – and he, yours?

      He, of course, equates what I did with a moral wrong – even though no harm was done to anyone. We differ profoundly on the definition of moral (vs. legal) wrong – his view being arbitrary and subjective, not requiring evidence that someone has been harmed – mine based on the objective criteria of harm actually caused.

      It blows me away that he cannot see the common principle… if I am in the wrong (in his eyes) to “speed” – and then to “elude” being punished for it … how is he right to not turn in his guns when the law demands he do so, to attempt to avoid AGWs attempting to confiscate them?

      In both cases, the justification is the same: The action/things in question are a “threat” to the “safety” of… well… “someone.” Maybe. It could happen. So we’ve gotta play it safe and make sure no one “speeds”…. or owns a firearm. Those who ignore “the law” are deserving of punishment, no matter they haven’t caused harm to anyone.

      I wonder whether this “friend” also thinks I should have been sent to prison when I was 19 for growing pot. I easily could have been. I was arrested and charged. With felony “production and manufacture.” It ended up being reduced to a misdemeanor and a small fine – but it could have gone the other way. I wonder whether he thinks I “got away” with that, too?

      All of this is sad – for all of us. Because though we aren’t collectivists, man is by nature a social animal and desires the companionship of friends and (of course) women.

      But we – people like us – find ourselves very much alone and on our own in a society populated almost entirely by people who are coercive collectivists and despise us for calling them out on it.

      • Ah, Eric- as usual, your articulation of the subject says it all- perfectly!

        I think, in this world today, we are encouraged to have friends and even romantic interests, with whom we just share trivialities- like enjoying the same music- but “Don’t talk about religion or politics”. Many- nay, even most people live this way. The common bonds which bind them are trivial and meaningless. If a situation ever arises where what they really believe comes to the surface, and it is not something that the other(s) embrace(s), then there is a major problem, and they must search for somebody else who enjoys listening to Frankie Goes To Hollywood CD’s……or “agree to disagree” or just keep their ideas to themselves.

        That is how culture is destroyed.

        When it comes to women, we are bombarded with the idea of just pursuing sex and pleasure, and maybe some “compatibility” based on the trivialities. The other day, my mother was mentioning an actor who got divirced because he loved kids and wanted many, while the dingbat he married didn’t want any kids.

        I was dumbfounded! One of the most crucial and irreconcilable fundamental choices in life….and they had never thought to discuss such beforehand; or somehow, the subject had never even come up in years of dating??!!

        But this is all a part of the collectivist ideology- one comrade is just the same as another. We are all just sheep. Pick one or several with whom you want to knock boots, or breed; join a group with whom you will cheer the local fuuuuuuuuuuuhtbaaaalll team, or with whom you will go to the rap “concert” with….it’s all just busywork to keep you occupied when you are not in your cubicle.

        We, by contrast, are the ones who can still think and reason and feel. We live lives of integrity which are based on our moral values and beliefs- which includes the belief that even those who practice that which we may find foolhardy or offensive, should be free to do so, so long as they are not doing violence to anyone else; and we will even defend their right to be free to do so- and when we do so, we are hated even more by our “friends” and relatives, as well as any who do not approve of what those whom we may defend may be doing**.

        We must be by nature, lone wolves in a world like this. (And those of us who embrace Biblical Christianity, even more so, in a world that hates moral absolutes, and where even professing Christians have the god of State before the Creator God; and obey the states laws as though they were Gospel, but preach how we need not obey God’s laws!)

        I used to think it was a matter of just finding the right girl; or the right friends…. LOL. But then I realized, while that may be true; in a world such as this where we are such a minority, if a few of us can connect now that we have the internet, we’re doing good!

        I mean, finding you and this site was really the first time in my life that I have had the opportunity to converse among at least several people who “get it”, and among whom we all share enough in common on the big moral issues that if we lived near each other, we could all be friends.

        We all can come here, and talk as colleagues and contemporaries- rather than as evangelists.
        ______________________________
        [**= I’m sure you know how it goes- but just as an example: A relative and I were discussing another relative who sells his prescription medications (Which he gets for free- from us, via Uncle)- My relative said “But don’t ever say anything [Menaing “Don’t narc on the guy”] and then went on to list a host of reasons why- such as the fact that he’s done favors- running errands and such, for elderly relatives.

        I explained that he needn’t explain WHY I shouldn’t narc, because i wouldn’t narc on ANYONE for selling a product which others were of their own free volition willing to buy; and that I think it is utterly despicable to condone the state using violence against such people, and destroying their lives by caging them and stealing their property, etc….

        Well….. you would not believe how in an instant, the person with whom I was talking changed! From imploring me not to narc, to “Oh, then you must love drug dealers! Why don’t you invite them over and hang out with them if you love them so much?….yada yada….

        They just do not get it. It goes beyond cognitive dissonance; I think it’s to the point of induced mass mental illness!

        So, in essence, what that person was saying, was “It’s good to F&CK every other drug dealer, even if they’ve never harmed a soul- just don’t do it to “Bob” since he’s of some value to the family”.

        I like being a lone wolf! Interacting with these idiots makes my blood boil, and makes me want to go live in a cave!]

        • PS: And that coming from someone who is about 6 different prescription drugs! -but of course “that’s different”, because someone duly authorized by the state gave him a little slip of paper saying that it is O-K……

          Intellectually, these people are about 5 years old.

        • Speaking of drug dealers, a conversation I once had pointing out the idiocy of make some arbitrary amount of an illegal substance made even less sense than the substance being illegal in the first place. And this person used “some” illicit substance. I pointed out everyone who was guilty of using such substance was also guilty of being a “pusher”. Ah, this raised the ol hackles so then I pointed out that recently he had bought X for he and his wife….and then sold some to a friend. Sputter sputter but but…..please spare me the proselytizing and preaching….and then told him I knew he sold it for more than what he paid since I had already found out from the guy he bought it from. He knew I was right. It was time to go for him. Hell, I could have carried on that conversation all day. Politicians and cops and the Just Us system could fuck up a cannonball with a rubber mallet and then cry about it and blame the cannonball maker or the rubber mallet people. FEFEFH’s.

  2. Why Conservatives are Liberal……..And most Libertarians and Anarchists are way off base concerning the human condition. Eric has by far the best site for libertarian auto news! I have discovered another extremely strong pro-liberty spokesperson which should interest everyone here and isn’t about auto’s; therefore isn’t competing with Eric’s site. Mark Passio has had training in an Ivy League school as an engineer, and he has profound insights about what is wrong with most libertarian and anarchist thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qGsNCWgvTg
    A mere fantastic speech isn’t proof or strong evidence about anything. His site is at http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/

  3. As a recovering conservative, I’d say most conservatives don’t take the time to think things through. If they did (by reading an excellent article like this), I’d hope most would see the inconsistency in their thinking. That being said, I don’t think speeding penalties will ever go away – they raise too much revenue!

    • I don’t think speeding and other traffic tickets will go away either, especially in smaller towns; the smaller towns don’t have much of a tax base, so they have to get extra money from SOMEWHERE…

  4. Got into these arguments regularly on FB threads and then stopped because they never go anywhere and I have more productive things to do. Blowing my nose is more productive than those threads were, but I digress.
    The single biggest argument conservatives turn to is “The Constitution”, which in and of itself is comical as they ignore the history of it, but as I’m sure your friend has done in a situation like you presented, they whip out “Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, driving isn’t”. Not only does this wholly pass over that just before this toilet-paper was written, the previous government had implemented laws prohibiting the exact things the “Bill Of Rights” supposedly protects, but it skips the 9th Amendment, which is the catch-all for individual rights, including the right of travel. “But state roads…” uh-huh. All the people in all the towns and cities before the advent of the automobile surely had licenses and registrations for their horses and wagons, yes?
    Even with friends, I stopped arguing on topics because it was giving me the shits that these people, who I believed had some level of intelligence, couldn’t think with any level of rationality. “The law says… and if you don’t like it, you can fight to change the law, but you have to follow it!”
    Migraine inducing.

    • Hi Gabe,

      Yes – exactly. It’s depressing – because these people (my friend, at least) are not stupid people. Some (like my friend) are quite bright. But they think in subjective terms – at least when it comes to ideas – and even when you point out the principle which is the essential foundation of one thing (e.g., the right to own a gun) is exactly the same as another (e.g., the right to travel) they just kind of “blank out” and revert to their boilerplate positions.

      I encountered this when I attended a few Tea Party events in my local small town. I dared to raise the issue of property taxes – complained about being forced to pay money to fund the government indoctrination of other people’s kids. The hate which radiated from the faces of these “conservatives” could have melted steel.

      • It’s like that KGB guy pointed out, they can no longer think and cannot accept new information. It was how the schools were intentionally constructed. However he blames a soviet/communist influence but the ground work was done even before the soviet union came into existence.

        The schools must be taken away from the state first otherwise the only people who can be reached are those who didn’t go to government or government like schools, those who were immune to the conditioning, or those for whom the conditioning merely damaged.

        • Hi Brent,

          Agreed.

          In my own case, I attribute my capacity to reason (sometimes!) to two things. One, I was given access to a tremendous variety of books (all subjects) when I was very young and this helped develop my curiosity and desire to self-educate. Two, my parents were educated people who valued critical thinking and put me in a private school for the first several years of my life – until the 5th grade.

          I then entered government schools – and quickly became aware of the pervasive imbecility, manifested as hostility toward any questioning of the various dogmas, many of which even then I knew were just that (having learned enough about them to make that judgment).

          If I ever have a kid, he will go into a government school over my very dead body.

          • I started self educating very young and never stopped. The schools never burned that out me. Hurt me in other ways but never burned that out. It helped that my day has always bought lots of books. We don’t have a lot of subject overlap in interests but enough that it could keep me busy when I was kid.

            Before the internet I felt very very much alone as I have encountered very few people in person who aren’t well conditioned.

  5. I bet that friend of Erics would squeal like a pig if he got caught for speeding or some other infraction, telling how unfairly he was treated by the cops. At the same breath, he would probably excoriate any one of us for the same thing. Those types of “conservatives” make my flesh crawl. The hypocrisy is palpable and the situation hopeless.

  6. A REAL friend wouldn’t want a friend in cuffs for such a trivial ‘crime’.

    IMO the only correct way to protest these ludicrous laws is to peacefully disobey. In days past when a little freedom reigned Juries used to dismiss stupid laws and found the defendants ‘Not Guilty’. Of course they get around that today by telling Juries what they can and cannot consider. IMO that’s Jury tampering by the legal system. Also they no longer allow Jury trials for some ‘crimes’ to prevent a sympathetic verdict.

    All law enforcement today is a scam from the get go. Most cases are now ‘settled’, the DA threatens you with 10,000 years in prison OR 6 months pleading guilty to a lesser felony. Another notch on his record and you can not own a firearm as a felon in most states. Win/Win for them.

    Many LEO’s today are ex-service from Afghanistan or some other ME/NA hole where they routinely invaded homes and shot innocent people for defending themselves. I seen this during my paid vacation in SE Asia many years ago. When they come home any conscious they may have had has been extracted and they have no problem doing the same to us.

    As a 70 year old I too am constantly impressed by the clovers I have to avoid trying to navigate to some place. And older drivers do seem a bit challenged having to push on one pedal and steer at the same time. .

    A death grip on the steering wheel,,, riding the brake,,, 10 – 15 under the speed limit and my favorite, waiting for a half mile clearance both ways before crossing a road or turning. By then my Road King oil temp is maxing out. Texting is also a problem that LEO’s don’t address. They’ll ticket you for 5mph over but let someone looking down obviously texting drive on by.

    • Oh: if you’re a felon, as far as I know, you can NEVER vote again.

      I’m sure that whoever came up with that, didn’t intend for so many things to become felonies (i.e. catalytic converter). But I guess that’s what happens when people just want FedGov to wave a magic wand at every problem they have.

      • Some States allow you to petition for a return of your ‘RIGHTS’ which apparently are now a PRIVILEGE since you have to request them. It seems the national government has no problem ignoring the Constitutional provisions of the document that created it. Same for the States that are supposedly required to adhere to it as well.

      • That varies from state to state. There was a time I’d have said: Who cares? but now with the Dems off the deep end on guns and some really crazy shit I feel the need to vote on what might be a close race just to keep them out. Since I feel compelled to vote on tight races where the outcome is another shitstorm of some sort, I vote Libertarian or Independent on other races just to tilt at windmills. On that note though, in Texas the Libertarian party got record amounts in the last election.

  7. I would argue the opposite. The Left is very conservative, the right is just a little more so. Oh sure the leftists out there are trying to force their insanity on society, but when it comes to real politics they’re much more status quo than the conservatives. They’re living on a legacy of a House of Representatives that’s been democratic controlled from the 1930s until the 1990s, and even when the Republicans took control in the 1990s they had to deal with Clinton and a radically left Supreme Court. The Democrats are always looking back to those glorious days of old when Tip O’Neil could ramrod anything through and Reagan would sign it.

  8. I applaud you for avoiding that fine. I think a true friend would have bought you a beer. Anyone that has experienced how this system works knows it’s not about safety first – it’s about money.

    Conservatives…. I’ve got a childhood friend that started regularly attending Church and watching Fox news. We don’t talk anymore. Guns were about the only common ground we had after this. I feel like a cult stole my buddy.

    • Morning, Bin –

      That’s my attitude as well. You’d think I had confessed to him I’d just shoplifted a bunch of ribeyes!

      And here’s a funny thing: This guy has had two accidents in the past year. Me? None in the past 30. He trusted me to teach his son how to drive.

      But he gets annoyed when I ridicule speed limits; becomes angry when he hears about me “eluding” an AGW in order to avoid a heavy fine for merely driving faster than a speed limit established – at best – on the basis of presumptive incompetence and least common denominatorism… and would object, strenuously, to the same Dangerous Retard Standard being applied to himself with regard to firearms.

      That’s “conservatism” for you.

      And that’s why Sam Francis called it the philosophy the Stupid Party.

    • I was the youth pastor in church. Pastor says who thinks speed limits are a bad idea. I’m the only who raises my arm. The one cop in the church is asked do you speed. His wife shouts yes he speeds all the time. Again it just proves that speed limits are pointless laws. They could be speed suggestions like in crowded areas or sharp corners.

      • Hi Mooeing,

        Speed advisories make good sense to me – but the idea of a one-size-fits-all standard is absurd on its face. The speed that is “safe” for X may be very unsafe for Y. And the reverse.

        By way of analogy: Imagine if a gym had a Bench Max rule. Since the average guy can’t safely handle 225 pounds, the “Max” for everyone is 150 pounds. You get fined if you’re caught working out with more weight.

        Silly, right?

        Well, so are speed limits – for the same reason.

        I realize the Clovers will cry – but it’s different! You might hurt someone else by speeding! True. But if “might hurt someone else” is the basis for speed laws then I can’t think of any human action that might not be restricted – and punished – on the same basis.

        If you allow that precedent, it will inevitably be expanded. I tried to explain this to my conservative friend. He resents any infringement of his right to own whatever firearms he wishes to own – and I agree with him. But I tried to explain to him that just as he worries that “someone else” might be hurt by my driving faster than he feeeeels is “safe,” many people similarly feeeeeel that guns in private hands might result in “someone else” being harmed and urge bans and other such on that basis.

        He doesn’t get it.

        • eric, I have to wonder what your “friend” thinks about Hunter Thompson. After all when anyone went to visit him they normally had a gun of some sort or many sorts thrust into their hands. He’d like that. I can only wonder how much he’d like some other HT qualities.

          I feel much like anonymous, I like sex, drugs, rock and roll….and rockabilly and country, guns and speed. I once knew a company of livestock haulers with a Peterbilt that topped out at 100mph. Nobody would drive it. It was too slow. I consider a car going too fast as the speed where the front tires come off the pavement. I bet a ride in a hot car with me would prompt your friend to pull a gun and threaten me…..once we were stopped. He’s the guy that nowadays would pull out his phone if you passed him doing 150…..probably wouldn’t even have to do anywhere near that.

          Some day he may grow and pair and not have to totally rely on his “guns”. Yeah, probably not.

          • “Grow a pair”. BTW, Hunter did say something once I totally agree with “I believe the Republicans have never thought that democracy was anything but a tribal myth.”

    • That’s it, Bin, “watching Fox”. Those conservatards don’t have any thoughts in their heads that didn’t come from a TV screen. They aren’t conservatives at all, they are TV addicts. Everyone who defends the official 911 story is defending the TV version of the story. Everyone who defends the hilariously illogical moon landing story or the official story of the JFK assassination is defending a TV fable.

      Worshipping AGWs comes from watching TV. Rallying around the GOP is an action instilled by TV programming. As George Carlin said a long time ago, “Why do you think they call it programming?”

      • I agree with you Anonytard! The so-called conservatives think that they have the high ground when it comes to being rational, but they are blind to facts. Indeed: the vast majority of people including even many libertarians are off base due to the fact that they rely upon only one part of their brain. When the other part atrophies, the so-called lizard part takes over. The lizard part is interested in control of outcomes. The left side only considers what can be determined by the senses, the right side obeys orders. These examples are oversimplified for the sake of brevity. I have been checking out Mark Passio’s website at whatonearthishappening.com . So far, he seems to be correct about what he is telling us, but I may change my mind later.

        • BTW Eric, Mark Passion lives in Philadelphia, PA., and he is a fan of Tesla, the man. You two might ought to meet each other. I do not know precisely how far you live from each other, but 200 – 400 miles is nothing for a truck driver to travel. Supposed to, he would have given us free electrical energy from the ionasphere had not the State and big business blocked him about a century ago. Electric cars might then have been the way to go. I do not understand advanced science well enough to judge the validity of his plans, but apparently there exists scientists who wish to bring his dream of free electrical energy to everyone into fruition.

  9. Hi Eric, that collectivist Republican friend of yours is also looking at potential events in only one way. He thinks about potential things that might happen in front of you while you are speeding, but has not considered the equal possibility that your speeding may mean that you zip by before it crosses your path.
    I really enjoy making statists uncomfortable. In Missouri, we have stupid laws about alcohol and minors. A teenager at the cash register can not ring up my liquor purchase at a store, so the manager gets called over just to ring up that one item. The bag boy likewise cannot place my beer back into the shopping cart because he is less than 21 years old as well
    I’m always speaking politely to the store workers around me, but I mock the utter stupidity of those laws and the politician’s who wrote them. For some reason, many people seem to dislike my comments.

    • Hi Brian,

      Amen! I also ridicule this stuff – and refuse to tolerate it, whenever feasible. I tire of being asked to produce ID to buy – literally – a bottle or two of the German beer I like, along with my groceries. I’m no longer flattered. I’m 52. I could pass for early 40s, because I keep myself in very good shape. But under 21? At some point, idiocy has to be stomped.

      I am annoyed by the crashing stupidity of every one-size fits all standard and will fight it whenever I can.

      So when the 17 year old cashier asks for my ID, I tell her – nicely, because I know it’s not her fault, that she is only doing as ordered by management – that I won’t be providing ID and that if that’s store policy, I won’t be buying anything. I have twice walked out, leaving everything on the conveyor belt.

      • The local Wally had this young skinny gal working the register…..briefly. She was an abusive little shit, tried to ID me when scanning the beer automatically has the question “Is this person over 40?”. I read her the riot act and said she was gonna see my ID on that day when hell freezes over. Sorry little gal, I don’t suffer fools easily. Lucky for all of us, she was a flash in the pan. I just feel sorry for whoever is being abused by her now. They come in all ages, sexes, sizes, etc. FEFEFH’s.

      • What especially pisses me off is having to show ID to buy certain cold medicines over the counter. Some a-hole in gov’t deemed it necessary because certain chemicals within said med are used for making meth. I reluctantly showed my ID while telling the cashier that this would NOT stop the meth cooks, as they’d only find other ways to obtain the ingredients they need.

        What pisses me off even more is that I have my license and passport card in a little, folding protector that goes in my wallet; it’s designed so you can pull it out, show your ID, then put it back. They tell me they have to SCAN my license, making me pull it out! WTF?! Why do these a-holes have to make even routine chores a PITA?

        • Hi Mark,

          It only makes sense once you realize the purpose – which is to degrade people and get them used to be being treated not as free men and women but as cattle.

          • I know what you’re saying. Though I would have liked to have left the medicine on the counter, I needed it because I was quite sick. I’m just SICK & TIRED of the drug war bullshit. I knew it was bullshit over 30 years ago when I was in the Navy doing drug patrols in the Caribbean. I knew back then that our top officials, both civilian and military, had to be in on the drug smuggling (i.e. getting a piece of the action) because of how we prosecuted the drug war. I’ll give you an example.

            When we were on one patrol, we went within miles of the Colombian coast. What did all the smugglers do? They laid low and didn’t come out! Our being there only kept them from trying to transport their MJ.

            As a quick aside, cocaine and heroin, because they’re concentrated, can be shipped by airplane as the drug doesn’t take up much space in its pure form, nor is it very heavy. Pot though, is a bulk cargo; it’s so bulky that they put it in bales, much like hay. Ergo, in order to transport MJ in significant quantities, you’ll have to use a ship to do it.

            Now, if we had been SERIOUS about catching these guys, we wouldn’t have gone off the Colombian coast; we wouldn’t make them go hide and lay low. The smart thing to do would be to deploy our ships in the Caribbean choke points between Colombia and the US coast. ANY ship coming up from Colombia or thereabouts will HAVE to pass through one of these choke points in order to get to the US. Look at the map and see for yourself.

            One such choke point is between the Yucatan Peninsula and the west end of Cuba; given the distance there, you’d need two destroyers to ensure adequate radar coverage. Another choke point is between the eastern end of Cuba and the western end of Hispaniola (the Haiti coast); that gap is narrow enough for one destroyer. The final one is between the east end of Hispaniola (Dominican Republic) and Puerto Rico; again, that gap is narrow enough to be covered by one destroyer type vessel. As for the Bahamas and that eastern flank, we could have deployed our PHMs there; I reckon two or three would have been enough.

            There’s another facet to this WRT the aviation side: the speed and altitude parameters we used for flagging possible drug smuggling aircraft would only nail the small timers. I know, because during one patrol, the water was too shallow to use sonar, so I did some time in the radar room watching for airplanes bound for the US. Anyway, the speed and altitude parameters wouldn’t catch the serious operators flying Mitsubishi MU-2s or similar equipment; it would only catch the little guy flying a Piper Aztec or other small piston twin.

            As the old punch line goes, I told you all that so I could tell you this: if I, as a sonar operator on a destroyer, could figure this out, then I know FULL WELL that the admirals in the Pentagon could too; after all, they’d studied strategy at the Naval War College, so they’d surely know this too. That begs the question: why weren’t we deployed at the aforementioned Caribbean choke points? Because we weren’t SERIOUS about waging the drug war; it’s that simple. I don’t know what other conclusion one can draw.

            That’s what REALLY pisses me off about the faux drug war: the gov’t isn’t really trying to fight it; they’re only putting on a show while they use it as a pretext to take our rights away. It’s for our ‘own good’, of course.

            Those are my thoughts. I’ve pontificated long enough…

            • Hi Mark,

              “That’s what REALLY pisses me off about the faux drug war: the gov’t isn’t really trying to fight it; they’re only putting on a show while they use it as a pretext to take our rights away. It’s for our ‘own good’, of course.”

              You nailed it. The drug war has never been about eradicating drugs out of a concern for “our” health. It began as a way to control the “degenerate” Chinese, Mexicans and Blacks, and anyone else involved in the counter-cuture. Nixon expanded it in an attempt to demonize anti war and anti police protestors (though he still feared the blacks).

              It has always been a way of creating fear and keeping people apart. Government needs conflict as it perpetuates the idea that “we” need rulers to avoid social collapse. As Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

              Cheers,
              Jeremy

              • And then to take the whole rabbit hole deeper, apparently the “drug culture” of the 1960s was apparently created by the CIA in order to… I’m not sure what, but the stock answer of “get people into a dumb, easily-led-astray stupor” will probably suffice.

        • 5 years ago the construction company I worked for had a contract to build a large rail yard in Seagraves, Texas, a tiny little shithole of the typical wild ass high plains people, the Bible thumpers among them, Mennonites and Hispanics who are used to being told by someone(the Pope)what to do.

          First day I ride with a crew to the local convenience store where they only sell, Bud, Coors and Miller, mostly in the ‘light’ form, which sucks for an old time beer drinker. So we go to this “chain” grocery store named “Lowe’s” and I shopped and got some beer. At the register they rung me up but not the beer and said I had to swipe my DL in the machine to get the beer. I left it all sitting. Luckily there was some Dos Equis in the trailer that belonged to the boss which I drank for him. I came across another grocery store that is part of the Thriftway family in Colorado City, Texas. I thought nothing about it, went back to the beer section, picked up a six of something like a Bock, the closest thing they had to what I like. At the counter I was told to swipe my DL. I just walked out. I don’t like to stop a truck at a liquor store but did anyway. Best thing there was some Dos Equis, a beer I have to be desperate to drink but at least they didn’t ID me. BTW, the local Thriftway doesn’t have beer……..because it’s within 300′ of a school, for what the hell difference that makes, another crazy ass Texas law. Sorta like the law you can’t buy beer on Sunday till noon cause the crutch crowd don’t like when you get a head start on them. Of course you can’t buy liquor on Sunday in Texas. It’s one of the last bastions of the Bible thumpers having “some” control on the entire population. Better not wait till the last minute to get that Sunday bottle of Evan Williams or you might get timed out. With a lot of people they’ll close the doors 5 minutes early to check out the people already there since they can’t legally sell anything after 9pm. Don’t all these laws make a lot of sense? Take away vice laws and the corporation prisons would be in dire straits….so to speak.

          • And to think, at one low point after the 2008 Crash, we actually for a few moments considering moving back down to Texas panhandle where my dad’s family lives …

            • I can’t tolerate the panhandle just because of no trees and flat land as far as the eye can see plus some brutal winters. I live in the Rolling Plains with a lot of trees, a lot more than “rolling” and plenty of wildlife. I live in shinery where it’s really sandy and has different vegetation from the tight land. The neighbor on I hunted the pear tree 100′ from the house out of a blind….a pickup parked in the drive. Lots of wild hogs and deer.

              • Yeah, it’s absolutely flat around there, except for the few creek and river bottoms below prairie level. Lots of center pivots. They’re right up in the NW corner. Before the GM F*ckup, they had bought another little dealership over in Clayton NM, and that’s really not too far from some pretty country. But it also became clear that we just wouldn’t fit into the “culture.”

                I was ready to move down to the west side of the Hill Country 30 years ago, but my allergies are horrible down there (which of course is why we moved away when I was little but I thought maybe I’d gotten over that – No!).

              • Just to add: though Eastern Montana is mostly prairie, there are still a lot of hills and bluffs. Right where we are is mostly pine trees and rimrocks, but you can drive ten miles and be on pretty barren looking prairie.

      • In Indiana, it’s not store policy, but state law. Even if your a walking liver spot. Not even the retailers choice anymore. Indiana isn’t a blue state either, almost as Republican as the south.

        Republicans are control freaks as much as Democrats.

      • Hi Eric! I just did the same thing at a Sam’s Club. My wife and I (we are both 26) were buying a 12-pack and a cart full of groceries. The lady at the register asks for my ID, which I readily provide. She then scans the item and some of the groceries. Moments later, as I am producing payment, she realizes the presence of my wife and asks if she is with me. My wife answered yes and upon her reply, the cashier demanded to see her ID as well (which she did not have on her person– why would she???). We told her she didn’t have an ID but that it didn’t matter because she was not the one buying- I WAS THE ONE BUYING. This was apparently not good enough for her arbitrarily enforced power-trip. BACKGROUND: (1) There is no such law on the books here in Indianapolis AND (2) The lady before us in line also bought beer, but her 5 year-old daughter was not carded. So, I politely told the cashier that if I could not buy my 12-pack of beer, that I would not be buying anything ever again from a Sam’s club. I then proceeded to drop a few (fairly loud) F-bombs at her manager and walked out of the store, leaving lots of refrigerated/frozen produce and a tiny bit of beer on the conveyor. My wife and I then took our grocery list to a Meijer and happily spent a few more dollars on a harassment-free shopping experience.

      • The only thing that would–possibly–hinder uncle scam from implementing speed limiters on cars to the speed limit of the road it’s traveling on is the amount of revenue that the police and insurance mafia’s rake in from “speeding”.

        They have all the technology in modern cars to implement a scheme like that if they so desired.

        • Too true. The same people who reserve the right to take out a contract on their own unborn offspring, have a fit because of “the children!” whenever someone says they don’t want 15 million safety nags on their car.

          I once said that a liberal is someone who wants to remove all restrictions from sexual deviancy, the murder of the unborn, and the consumption of mind altering substances, but then destroy all other forms of freedom. I still stand by that assessment and would now add “for reasons of safety, as often as not”.

          (I’m not sure I can fully support the libertarian position on drugs yet. You can’t be so naive as to believe that the current trend toward MJ legalization is happening for any reason other than 1. Big Pharma has figured out how to profit from it and 2. TPTB want the populace in a perpetual drug haze so they may be more easily misled. In this case, as in all others, the stated and actual reasons for things rarely overlap. That said, I think calling pot a “schedule 1 narcotic” is flatly idiotic and wrong, especially considering some of the poison that’s allowed to pass for medicine these days.)

          • I support MJ legalization for no other reason than to stop busting down folks’ doors in the middle of the night and shooting their dogs for nothing other than a damn garden weed.

    • Handler,

      These speed limiting devices?

      Would they be called governors here in the states?

      A device to RETARD THE FORWARD PROGRESS of the operators?

      • The word “regulator” was stolen from the steam engine. On a steam engine that rotating contraption with two large balls is the regulator. It was somewhat revolutionary in that it could modulate the throttle to keep the engine from over-revving and destroying itself. A practical implementation of negative feedback.

        The progressives took the word as their own. Only the wise regulators could keep capitalism from getting out of hand and destroying itself. Later, the same idea was applied to all manner of things. People, nature, waterways, airspace, boarders, wars, the heavens…

  10. Conservatives are known worshipers of the welfare/warfare/police/corporate state along with being Evangelical, Israel-humping lunatics. Also, notice how they always try to seek appeasement from the left when it comes to diversity. Fuck ’em.

  11. Technically, you did nothing “wrong” since he didn’t come up behind you with lights flashing and you refused to pull over. You just drove even faster while out of sight. I agree that speed isn’t necessarily the most dangerous factor though it is sometimes combined with other dangerous driving. I rarely or never see anyone pulled over (that I know of) for really dangerous driving like tailgating or dangerous passing, etc.

    But if *you* choose to run and then starting smashing into other cars without stopping, I don’t care what they do to you and the worse the better. If I see red&blue in the mirror I just assume that they need to get somewhere in a hurry and slow down and get the hell out of the way.

  12. Hey Eric, maybe you should introduce this guy to M.A., sounds like they are yin and yang of the same coin. Especially since one hates gun owners and the other one hates “speeders”. Problem is, they both like using AGWs and the PTB to bully others by proxy. Opposites, and yet mirror images…..a lot like politicians.

  13. Eric, the BIG problem I have with conservatives is their worship and lionization of law enforcement. They LOVE their ‘Heroes’…

    • Hi Mark,

      Yup; my friend is like this. He always defends “LEOs” – as he styles them. I don’t get it. The (supposed) basis of conservatism is that people can’t be trusted with power. Agreed! But then why reverence armed government workers? Who are people entrusted with power personified?

      • As a a deprogramming conservative, it took me a long time to see that conservatives are like liberals in that they like controlling others; the only difference is that they like controlling others THEIR way. It’s like the pic of the donkey & elephant you have above. But, because I’d drunk the conservative Kool-Aid, I didn’t SEE that until very recently…

        The problem is I CANNOT identify with any tenets of liberalism (really socialism); I can’t stomach them. If forced to pick between the two, I’d have to reluctantly choose conservatism over liberalism. That said, I always had a rebellious streak. I also noticed the change from peace officers to AGWs, so I could no longer, in good conscience, respect cops like I used to.

        When I had my ZRX, I went fast ALL the time. Even at double the PSL, my old ZRX felt like it was a trotting thoroughbred. I even outran a cop once on it! Fortunately, I got a good jump on him and he had no prayer of catching me.

        • Hi Mark,

          “The problem is I CANNOT identify with any tenets of liberalism (really socialism); I can’t stomach them. If forced to pick between the two, I’d have to reluctantly choose conservatism over liberalism.”

          To mock the current transgender hysteria, the political spectrum is not binary. I had a similar experience to yours a number of years ago. But, it was not the realization that conservatism is unprincipled and incoherent (though still somewhat better than progressivism), but that the entire concept of minarchist, limited government is fatally flawed.

          This essay by the late, great and unfairly maligned Joe Sobran is poignant and beautifully written. I suspect that it may resonate with you.

          http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

          Kind Regards,
          Jeremy

          • Jeremy,

            Thanks, I’ll check out that Sobran essay; I already have it opened in a separate window.

            I guess the best thing I can say is that, more than anything else, I just want to live and let live. You do your thing; I’ll do mine; as long as we don’t harm one another, it’s all good. I just want to be left alone to live my life in PEACE.

            BTW, I meant to say recovering conservative up above. I couldn’t think of the word; I had a brain fart…

            • Hi Mark,

              What you say pretty much sums it up. My own reluctant abandonment of the “myth of political authority” began when exposed to this simple question posed by Auberon Herbert, “By what right does one man rule over another?” Thinking on this, I came to understand that the concepts that supposedly justify political authority collapse upon examination.

              Democracy can be dispensed with by asking a follow up question, “By what right do two men rule over one?”

              Consent of the governed falls apart for two primary reasons. First, no one alive actually gave consent in a meaningful sense. Second, it is impossible to grant meaningful consent without the possibility of withholding it or withdrawing it should the other party fail to meet the obligations it promised in exchange for consent.

              Which leads to the supposed contract created by the Constitution. If one party to a contract can change, or ignore, the terms at will and still hold the other party responsible to those altered terms, such a contract is meaningless. Many will argue that Democracy solves this problem, it does not.

              Finally, the idea that government rule is just because “we” delegated our just authority to it in order to provide services that we could not provide ourselves is invalid for two reasons. First, no one alive has done so and, second, it is impossible to delegate an authority that one does not possess. I do not have the authority to invade my neighbor’s home, kidnap his son and put him in a cage for smoking a plant. Therefore, I cannot delegate such authority.

              Minarchists will object that my example details an abuse of just delegation, not a repudiation of the concept. They argue that individuals have the right to create an institution for the purpose of mutual self-defense and to delegate authority to leaders of that institution in order to achieve those mutually agreed upon goals. This is true, but government also claims the right to exclude others from doing the same and requiring those who do not agree, to participate anyway. This is not an authority possessed by any individual, and thus cannot be delegated.

              Cheers,
              Jeremy

            • I’ve been the non-conformist since I was a small child. I had two different old school teachers who liked me in the 1st and 4th grade, another in the 6th.

              I seemed to draw the ire of those steeped in conformism. I smelled the rat of the pledge of allegiance in grade school and prayer too. Nobody needed to try to give me religion although many tried. I had grown up seeing the hypocrisy of the crutch crowd as I termed them.

              When I was 14 the Vietnam debacle was ramping up with LBJ in office. An assistant coach I couldn’t tolerate did me and ostensibly every other male in our class a priceless service by asking us what we knew about the conflict. Not much it turned out but most of us starting digging. By the time we were considered fair game for uncle’s slavery we’d all smelled the rat to the point of out of 20 males in our class, not one went into the military. It’s become some sort of a record with no other class before or after being able to make that claim.

              It didn’t slide by me that the old mofo Reagan was terrified of black people so he created an anti-gun bill in Ca. that was to go around the whole country state by state.

              I don’t know how much Reagan hated the anti-establishment crowd but it was obvious Nixon was out to one-up everyone with the creation of the DEA.

              I don’t recall an election in my lifetime that was anything other than voting for the lesser of two evils. That’s the reason the old Fugs song (Wide, Wide River or just plain river of shit)struck such a chord with me. In their words, “Was George Washington the lesser of two evils? Sometimes I wonder”.
              On that note I will give Bush and Cheney the distinction of doing more to destroy this country in 8 years than even the lying rail splitter Lincoln. They made LBJ and Nixon look like choir boys. When Mencken said “Give the people what they want…..good and hard” he was obviously channeling that evil duo.

  14. Morning Eric,

    Ironically, progressives (although it is a futile gesture, I do not wish to legitimize the theft of a good word) are more principled than modern conservatives, it’s just that their principles are loathsome. To a progressive, rights are a privilege created by the State, individual rights are subordinate to “group ” rights and some “groups” are entitled to special rights. Despite all of the claimed concern for the “common” man, progressives believe that, if left alone, the common man will make horrible choices that harm themselves, and more importantly, retard social “progress”. They believe that it is the duty of wiser, better men (always themselves) to impose their vision of a better society through force. Thus, their principles justify any level of intrusion, by the state, into any area of life. Most modern progressives would not accept this characterization of themselves but that is due to cognitive dissonance and the intentional suppression of the roots of progressive thought.

    Conservatives mouth the language of natural rights (a universalist concept) but apply it based on personal preference (a relativistic concept). They seem incapable of recognizing that such selective application renders the principle meaningless. Your friend almost certainly believes in natural rights, but his arguments, as you present them, are entirely relativistic and utilitarian, thus hypocritical.

    Your story is similar to a recent experience I had with two dear, and reflexively progressive, friends. While discussing the drug war (which they vehemently oppose), I said that if I were on a Jury in a non-violent drug case I would refuse to convict, even if I knew the defendant was “guilty”. They were, in their own words, appalled and saddened. They were even more disturbed when I said that it would not be immoral to lie during the voir-dire in order to get on the jury in order to promote nullification. They are opposed to the drug war and consider drug laws to be unjust. On the surface, their position seems hypocritical, but it is not. Once you understand that the individual is subordinate to society, then undermining the legitimacy of the State is a far greater moral offense than participating in a particular injustice against a mere individual.

    Cheers,
    Jeremy

LEAVE A REPLY