A reader brings up the question about this site’s mascot icon. What does it represent? What does it mean? I have answered query this before, but it bears answering again because it means something very dangerous – a thing I’ve been trying to get across for decades.
Let me try one more time.
The Clover symbol goes back a few years. It was the handle of a very persistent troll who embodied everything I’m philosophically opposed to – collectivism, authoritarianism, busybodyism, one-size-fits-all, the general dumbing down – and so his (possibly her) name became shorthand for all those things and the symbol with the cross through it represented the opposition of these pages to those things.
It serves as both shorthand and a means of expressing contempt for those things as the word has a nice, insipid quality about it.
For decades, I’ve been warring with Clovers – and warning about them. Specifically, about the danger of their doctrine that risk – defined by them – must determine what we are permitted (also by them) to do. And that we are subject to punishment, not for having caused harm to anyone but because we did not abide by their doctrines regarding risk, as defined by them.
According to how they feel about it.
These doctrines are always presented in a kind of mewling, fraudulently caring manner that hides a rancid underlying busybodyism – which inevitably metastasizes into managerial totalitarianism . . . with themselves at the tiller.
It is not for nothing that we are currently under siege on account of an insanely exaggerated threat of sickness. This could not have happened in 1968 – though a greater threat of sickness (Hong Kong flu) presented itself in that year. The reason for that being Americans of that time had not yet been conditioned to accept the idea that any risk justified all measures and that to object or even to question this doctrine marked one as an uncaring, selfish person.
Now, of course, it is being marketed exactly that way.
People – large numbers of them – have been conditioned not only to accept but to venerate the doctrine that all risk is unacceptable and that no cost – whether measured in terms of money or liberty – is too great “if it saves even one life.”
To insist upon its application.
It is why every new car must, by law, be equipped with a back-up camera system no matter that almost no one actually backs up over anyone.
A handful of people have, so everyone must be presumed to might – and forced to pay for the equipment. The fact that you have never backed over anyone is not relevant – just as it is not relevant your driving has given no cause to suspect you may be impaired by alcohol. You are presumed incompetent as regards the former and must disprove the presumption of drunkenness as regards the latter.
You may, perhaps, see a principle through the murk. Most people, apparently, do not – which is why, of course, everyone is now being practically ordered at gunpoint to put the equivalent of a bedpan around the necks over their faces – the infamous Face Diaper (as I style it) which they must wear – or else – because they might be sick and if it saves even one life.
People – lots of them – accept this now and will accept more later because some of them accepted it a long time ago.
Not the Diaper, per se – but the principle animating it. Examination of this principle, has, of course, been systematically avoided for what should be obvious reasons, i.e., the supposed incidental at issue – for example, the backing-up over tots – would never support the principle being established if it were.
If people still in possession of the capacity to think in terms of principle were to examine it according to those terms, they would infer and draw the logical conclusion that if it is justified to require every new car sold to be fitted – at the customer’s expense and irritation as well as his degradation (viz, the presumed incompetence) with a back-up camera because someone other than himself once backed-up over a child then certainly all new cars must also be fitted with Breathalyzers, too – even though someone other than himself drove drunk and was caught/convicted of this.
He – everyone – is to be presumed drunk and “convicted” in the sense that punishment – in the form of having to accept a degrading (viz, presumed recklessness/criminality) device on the doctrine that he – that anyone – might drive drunk and if it saves even one life.
This is, in fact, about to actually happen. It is styled the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety – DADSS.
Can you hear the Clover’s ululation?
There are so many incidental examples it is hardly necessary to mention them. They are obvious and everywhere. They have become so pervasive as to be invisible to many and taken for granted as natural and normal, like the air we breath. Or try to, through our if it saves even one life Face Diaper.
Not so obvious the animating principle, stealthily cemented into place over the decades by never openly and honestly discussing it.
Because, of course, it doesn’t bear discussing. Because it means, inevitably and ultimately, the elimination of all freedom to act according to one’s own judgment rather than the judgment of busybodies – Clovers – on the basis of their fears about what might happen if you do not abide by their strictures and constraints.
There is no end to these, either – because there is no end to might. It defies objective definition – precisely the point – if you happen to be a Clover.
You have an objective record of responsible driving – objectively established by the absence of any harm caused over decades of driving. It doesn’t matter in the face of the busybody’s fear that you might cause harm, even though you haven’t. You must pay an annual mordita to the insurance mafia as if you had caused harm. Which, of course, harms you, to the tune of many thousands of dollars over the years – money you had to work for and which could have been used to help you.
It does not matter.
You take care of yourself, live responsibly and have no chronic illnesses. You prefer to put aside money for any health issues that arise rather than to pay for health insurance “coverage” you do not use. In particular, “coverage” for things you will never use – as for example maternity care in the case of the single male and substance abuse counseling services for the woman who doesn’t drink or “do” substances at all.
It does not matter.
You might impose “costs” on society – even though you haven’t. Costs will nonetheless be imposed upon you in the form of “coverage” you must buy – else be punished. Either way, of course, you are punished.
And now the Diapers.
Next the mandatory testing, tracing and vaccinating. Because someone might be sick and if it saves even one life.
That is what Clover means. Perhaps, if we are lucky, people will begin to understand what it means.
Before it is too late.
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – 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.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like an ear tag – custom made! – just ask and it will be delivered.