And, boy, did my most recent Liberty Lines column bring both fear and ignorance out of people!
I will reply to this letter to the editor from poor Brandon (whoever he is...), but I haven't decided yet whether to do it in next month's Liberty Lines, or to just do it here on the blog. (added: here's my response) Either way I wanted y'all to see what I'm up against locally.
So, here ya go (from the State Line Tribune- April 17, 2014):
(Click to enlargenize)
I'm surprised he didn't end with "God Save The King!" of the modern equivalent "God Save The Government!”. I always find it amusing when authoritarians arrogantly feel they are qualified to speak for reality, much less for God. The “reality” is, if one looks around at the current conditions we live in, that the existing system appears to be “Where stupid behaviors unabated maim, injure and kill.” It doesn’t take much investigation to recognize that the state is the source and instigator of much “stupid behavior”. Therefore, it is not only “Utopian” to believe that the state can accomplish the goals Mr. Embry suggest that it can, it is insane to believe that continuing to do the same thing over and over will produce different results in the future. Of course, I’m only scratching the surface of the patent self-delusion and creepy insanity put forth in this letter and I look forward to your response Kent.
ReplyDelete"It doesn’t take much investigation to recognize that the state is the source and instigator of much “stupid behavior”."
DeleteWould you please expand on this thought please? For example how does the state 'instigate' drunken driving, or the reckless abuse of mind altering drugs in public?
Of if you'd rather list the stupid behaviors you believe the state is currently "instigating."
I'm curious.
instigate: to goad or urge forward: provoke, syn. see incite
It's pretty easy to see how the state and its "laws" instigate drunk driving, for example.
DeleteFirst of all, it's not "drunk driving" anymore. The "law" has been dumbed down to the point of ridiculousness- where people who have 0% BAC (nor any other substance in their system) can still be arrested (read: kidnapped) for "DWI". Just because the cop who pulled them over needs to show he was doing something.
Also, in prior times when a person realized after getting behind the wheel that they shouldn't drive, they would sleep in off in their car, or if they had started to drive, they could pull over and either sleep it off or hitch a ride. Try doing either of those things today and see what happens. Result- the state causes people to weigh the risks and decide it's no worse to get caught driving than to get caught doing the right thing.
The way the state and its "laws" instigate the "reckless abuse of mind altering drugs in public" is similar. When the punishment is the same, why bother being responsible.
It's like I pointed out to a gun rights activist several years ago- when the BATFE can rule a shoestring is a "machine gun" (yes, it really happened) and the punishment for having a semi-auto is just as severe as the punishment for having a full-auto, why bother settling for the "less effective" tool? Either way, you're doing nothing wrong, and the punishment is completely insane if you get caught. Sanity and responsibility are removed from the equation, replaced by fiat.
The list of stupid behaviors the state and its "laws" instigate is just about endless. In fact, sometimes those stupid behaviors aren't just instigated; they are mandated.
My wife was on the jury for a fellow who had too much to drink and decided to sleep it off in his car in the parking lot instead of driving home: the smart thing to do. But two cops came up, knocked on his window and told him that he had to move (even though it was on private property and the bar owner knew he was there). When the man refused, they reached in the window, forced the door open, assaulted him, tazed him, damaged his car and drug him off to jail (after he was treated at the hospital on his own dime). I'd say that was a situation where the state agents instigated a "crime".
DeleteTry telling a joke or refuse to take your shoes off in an airport. Try starting a barber shop or other simple service business without getting a license and see what happens. Help your kid set up a lemonade stand in front of your house and see how long it takes before state agents shut it down. Let your grass grow too high and the local government will fine you and force you to mow it, shooting you if you resist. Walk down the street to your neighbor's house while drinking a beer and see what happens. And on and on and on and on...
The above doesn't include the stupid things that government agents do themselves as a matter of policy, especially the stupid things they waste money on, stolen money at that. If you need me to list those too, I'm afraid you are not paying very good attention.
A drunk sleeping in a car, yeah that is brilliant behavior. The smart thing to do would be not drink so much in public you can't find your way back home. I'm still not seeing how drunk driving laws goads people to consume too much alcohol in a public venue. Then in their incapacitated state they no longer understand how to be responsible humans.
DeleteAs to how shoe searches in airports and lemonade stands cause stupid behavior endangering the public I don't know. I suppose the argument could be made the "Underwear Bomber" was instigated to hide a bomb in his underwear instead of his shoe. That was pretty stupid. But in reality it makes it harder to sneak a bomb on an airplane. And of course a person could always exercise their liberty to not ride an airplane if they don't like the searches. (many have) It isn't a right after all, it is a privilege provided by the airline company.
Stupid anti-lemonade stand laws, and unreasonable searches is a whole 'nother problem I agree needs some reform.
"I'm still not seeing how drunk driving laws goads people to consume too much alcohol in a public venue"
DeleteYou don't like the answer so you change the question?
And, if you look at the case of the "Underwear bomber" you'll discover he was basically led onto the plane- bypassing the security theater- by "officials" who wanted him there for some reason. I suspect so they'd have justification for gate rape.
Travel IS a right. "Laws" are violating that right, and violating the right of the airlines to choose how to provide security for their customers.
drunk driving laws don't goad people to drink in public any more or less. they do affect the decisions people who have drunk (drank?) in public when they want to drive afterwards. if you want laws to influence how much people drink in public, then you contradict yourself and are asking to legislate morality. you contradict yourself also in that you don't want freedom, you want totalitarianism telling people how much they can drink. may as well tell me healthcare costs too much because of my weight and shave a little off of my gov supplied food rations.
Delete-Logan
Excessive consumption of alcohol or other mind altering chemicals results in disorderly and I would say aggressive behavior against the public. Drunken driving is just one example of how it is manifested.
DeleteWhat do you propose we do about the doofus that drinks too much, smokes too much crack, at home in privacy decides to jump in his car and go to Walgreens for some more booze? Wait around until he violates my life and liberty by running me over, then make him pay restitution?
Most "disorderly" behavior harms no one and it is stupid and evil to make up "laws" regulating it. Aggressive behavior brings its own consequences- no matter what excuse is grasped at to justify it.
Delete"What do you propose we do about the doofus that drinks too much, smokes too much crack, at home in privacy decides to jump in his car and go to Walgreens for some more booze?"
Who is this "we"? In most cases it is none of my business. If I encounter him on the road, the ultimate responsibility to avoid him lies with me.
Can you not think of ways to deal with him that don't involve violating his fundamental human right to drink "too much" or smoke crack? I can. More than one- since there is no single right answer. There are, however, a multitude of wrong answers- all involving "laws", theft, coercion, and armed goons paid with stolen money. So avoid those, and give yourself more credit to really solve problems. See what you can come up with to solve the problem of him deciding to drive when he runs out of booze. Or, maybe if you feel it is your Holy Crusade, to convince him why he shouldn't drink or smoke crack.
Who is this "we"? In most cases it is none of my business. If I encounter him on the road, the ultimate responsibility to avoid him lies with me.
DeleteLol! I hope you put that in your next column in one of the papers just as has been setup. Maybe you have before, I haven't read all of them.
Can you not think of ways to deal with him that don't involve violating his fundamental human right to drink "too much" or smoke crack?
So now you are going to change the premise? I never said anything like that. We're talking about what to do once they become aggressive by hurtling them selves into groups of other drivers while inebriated.
I strongly disagree with your idea "most disorderly conduct harms no one".
I don't know who you believe has the ultimate responsibility for your safety, but if you believe that it lies with others you are on a collision course with disaster. It's this same shirking of personal responsibility that gets people to drive drunk.
Delete"So now you are going to change the premise?"
No, I was just going to the root of your complaint, based upon what you wrote. But, if you want to wait until he's already drunk and out of booze, I can still see ways of lowering the chances that a drunk will drive- without violating his rights. I'll bet you could, too. Give it a try.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteHomeboy might just be right. Humans might be too stupid, lazy, dishonest, etc., to function in 100% freedom. Perhaps 73.7% Freedom might be the best "balance." Of course, that begs the question of why anyone would believe our Lawgivers and Enforcers are cut from finer cloth.
Dave
You and Brandon seem to be arguing on minor things. He does agree with you on the big picture and merely claims that you have a good basic idea and take to a degree that's unworkable and not taking into account human flaws. If there is no anomosity in this thread, it could turn out to be very productive.
ReplyDeleteHave there been successful societies which have thrived on this minimalist principal? It's not a challenge, I'd just like to know and you seem well-informed.
The problem is you may consider our differences to be "minor", but they're not. Brandon is admittiing he advocates my death for doing something that "offends" him but harms no innocent person. That is what statism is all about. "Agree, or at least comply, or we will send people to coerce your compliance. If you resist they will continue to escalate the situation until they murder you." That's not "nice" any way you slice it. That is where the animosity comes from. I don't like being threatened.
DeleteAnd, I have a blog post coming up soon which will address this question of a non-aggressive society- one which is very successful.
Here's the link to my response: Fear and ignorance banished! (I wish...)
ReplyDelete