Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Dragging others slows everyone

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 20, 2015... I was right in the middle of writing this one when I got the news about my daughter. As soon as I remembered what I had been doing, I just submitted it "as is" and never tried to finish it. I still don't know how heavily it was edited.)

Are there some things that can’t be accomplished without forcing people to go along?

Let’s say you are trying to hike back to civilization after your plane goes down in a remote area.

If your group is divided on the best way to survive, do those who want to walk out really want to be dragging along those who want to stay put?

Would that be good for either group; improve the odds of survival and allow you to get help faster? Or might this slow everyone down and take precious energy and resources from the chance for the survival of either group?

So why would anyone believe this is a good way to attempt a society?

Some fear doing everything by unanimous consent would mean nothing would get done. I think it means more would get done, and be done faster and better without the reluctant being dragged along.

Let's use national defense as an example. Let's imagine you aren't being taxed at all, nor are any of the products or services you use taxed in any way at any step. This means you could multiply your real wealth and spending power by many times. If you were just a few times richer, and could spend all that money any way you want, would you contribute to national defense? If not, then you don't value it enough to justify forcing others to share the cost. If so, then it is obvious it is valuable enough to be funded voluntarily.

The same goes for everything currently financed through the theft called "taxation". There are things currently funded by taxes I would gladly pay for- especially if I weren't being taxed so I could afford it. There are other things I don't want, but wouldn't stop you from funding. It's the difference between being civilized and being a society based on mutual violation. Plus, since it's cheaper and more efficient to accept donations than to pay swarms of agents to threaten people to pay up "or else", there's more money to go around.

If your idea has worth, you don't need to force participation. If you have to force participation, your idea is worthless.

Doing things collectively isn't necessarily bad. Only when it is not voluntary. I'm a fan of working together to accomplish things none of us can do alone. I'm not in favor of enslaving and robbing others to get what I want. Let everyone pay for what they want, not what they don't want, and pay for what they voluntarily choose to use.



Honesty may not be the best policy

Hold on to your butts...

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ~ H.L. Mencken

But, I'm not normal.

I don't spit, I hoisted the black flag long ago, and my version of slitting throats is watching the v*ters elect Trump. Or Sanders. Or Clinton, part 2. Or Paul, Cruz, Rubio, or any other of the toxic vermin running for president. They are all socialistic scum- the very flower of collectivism.

V*ters will get the president they deserve- unfortunately, they force the stupid bugger on the rest of us.

Is it bad that I hope the worst candidate "wins"? And the worse the president, the better I think it may actually be in the long run?

History shows that every president will be worse than the one before. Yes, even the ones from what you see as some Golden Age- because if they didn't void everything that was done before they took office, they added to the problem.

Now I no longer care how bad a president is- I just do what I must to survive his rule. I wouldn't exactly say I'm enthusiastic for an apocalypse, but I do sometimes think "Let's just get this over with." Sometimes you have to walk toward the fire- and then through it- to survive. You will suffer damage, but that's life. Do the best you can in less-than-perfect circumstances.