When I was writing yesterday's blog post, I was thinking of how many times I have already explained that same thing. I'm not sure exactly, but it is probably several. But, people "out there" aren't getting it.
That's not the only example, either. Nearly every post I write, dealing with some simple reality that shouldn't be hard to understand, is a re-statement of things I (or others) have said before, addressing bad thinking that has taken root and is still there despite all attempts to uproot it.
I know that almost no one "out there" in the world, percentage-wise, has been exposed to my blog, but I also know that if I can see and know something like that, many others do as well. I don't claim to be the only individual who can see these things. The opportunities are all around. Freely available.
I also know that when people say something dumb and demonstrably wrong, they often get pushback. I see it happen. They resist learning, though.
So, we repeat ourselves. Endlessly. And each time, it's as though no one has ever addressed the broken thinking before. Are these concepts not being explained well? Or have those who refuse to learn built defenses to protect their strange (often, political) beliefs, which results in the same result.
So, if you start reading this blog, or something else, and you get a feeling of deja vu, it's probably that you really have read something very similar before. We have to keep repeating ourselves for the slow kids in the back.
Not those who died as pawns of a government.
Not those who gave their lives to further the interests of political criminals in a government military.
Even knowing that many of those imagined, because of statist brainwashing, that they were doing the right thing.
But rather those who stood up for liberty and human rights, doing what they had the right to do, acting only in defense, and were killed or destroyed by the criminals of the State as a result.
The State will label them "criminals", grouping them with freelance archators, and Statanists will nod along with this lie. But these are the true heroes of the human story.
For Liberty!
I'd prefer brain surgeons to be specialists, but for most people, I think it's better to be a generalist. I can even see how it could be bad for a brain surgeon to be too specialized- to the point he misses something that would be obvious to someone else. If your only tool is a hammer, you'll see every problem as a nail.
I usually prefer to keep my options open by not doing anything that traps me into one course. This blog was birthed by me breaking my own rule. I have paid a price for that, but not an insurmountable price. It is an educational realization.
However, keeping your options open can also backfire. My aversion to focusing too deeply on any one thing prevented me from getting a college degree. I could never declare a major because it felt like a trap. When I get interested in something, I focus on it until I know it well enough to satisfy me, then I'm ready to move on to something else. (I recommend you not do what I have done.)
Probably the best course is to focus deeply on one area that others find useful, then dabble a little in everything else that interests you. That seems like it would work even for brain surgeons. It might make you a well-rounded individual who also has the expertise in one area to support you through life.
Now, this is objectively not true. Someone else pointed out. "I've seen them driving around downtown, sans human driver."
The Luddite's response. "They are not reliable. Several have ran over pedestrians and they have been the cause of accidents"
I pointed out, "Humans are even less reliable, unfortunately."
So, he responded, "If that is true then why is it required for a person to be at the wheel and paying attention while the vehicle is driving itself?"
My response, which should have ended the debate: "Because laws are archaic and stupid."
That "laws" require something dumb isn't an argument. It proves nothing. It doesn't make the case that statists believe it makes. Most legislation is years behind the curve. And even if it weren't, it would still be stupid (and evil).
Look, I would FEEL unsafe in a self-driving car. I really want to be in control, even though I don't like piloting vehicles very much. But, intellectually, I know they are already safer than human drivers. It doesn't matter whether I want that to be true or not. Mine is an irrational reaction based only on my feelings, not on reality.
Like my disdain for air travel (even without the TSA and security theater making it worse). Feelings aren't reality.
The weak link in traffic safety is the human behind the wheel- and it always has been. Drunk or sober.
The Luddite brought up several more objections, but every single problem he mentioned is also true for human drivers. Probably to a greater degree! Every single one. And, you know he knows it- he just doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars.
Here's the thing he's ignoring: Self-driving cars will continue to improve in their ability to safely handle real-world conditions and surprises. Humans, not so much.
I don't want legislation (or rules) to either mandate or forbid self-driving cars. I want the State kept out of our vehicles entirely. Government interference is the real danger.
I used to be this way. I once thought the Soviet Union was eternal. It had existed all my life, and I had no reason to think it wouldn't continue to exist long after I was gone.
Then, just like that, it was gone. I learned from that experience. Others don't.
My parents are prime examples.
They simply can't imagine things changing.
To them, a college degree will always be essential for any non-janitorial job. Any exception shown to them is "well, that's just one instance, and it's probably not even true". Even though there are plenty of examples in the family. Both people with well-paying jobs without a college degree, and people with college degrees having no job at all (or a low-paying job that's "beneath them").
They believe the US dollar will always be worth earning and saving. Even though it has already lost nearly all its trade value. When I've said that at some point, it will no longer be worth it to work for any job that pays in dollars, they said I was wrong, and that you'll always have to take dollars, because what else would you do?
At least I was finally able to talk them into diversifying into a couple of other options. Maybe they did see the writing on the wall.
They can't imagine the US government becoming so tyrannical that the people have to start openly defending themselves from it and its employees. They still believe cops are the good guys, even though they know of more examples of the "few bad apples" than the "good" cops. Their desire to believe otherwise is so strong!
They believe America will always be a superpower and the dominant military force on the planet. Tangentially, they believe the Israeli government (they confuse it for the country) is "America's" best ally (again, confusing a government for the country and population), ignoring history for what they wish to be true.
Eventually, the USA will be gone, just like the USSR. I hope America survives the end of the USA, but it may not.
Take nothing for granted. Plan ahead for the unthinkable. Bad guys are planning and plotting; do the same in self-defense.
At their age (or even at mine), there's no guarantee they'll live to see these changes. But the changes are coming. If they aren't here already.
All statists suffer this mindset. They can't imagine life without their god, so they think their god will always reign supreme. That's not guaranteed, though. In fact, the opposite is guaranteed; no one knows the timeframe, though.
Then, they'll try to insult me by calling me an "anarchist".
They're shooting blanks.
If their idea of "libertarian" means keeping a minimal state around ("minarchy"; the wildest Utopian notion ever) so it can violate life, liberty, and property they don't personally like, count me out.
They don't really trust liberty, but fear some aspects of it, which they want government to control (violate) for them. They want to distinguish themselves from anyone who isn't saddled with their hangups. So they'll insist libertarians can't be anarchists and anarchists aren't libertarian. Many of them will say that if you're not on board with the Libertarian Party, you're not a libertarian.
Just like the awful person I know who once told people who asked about me, "I don't believe like him", I'm glad they've distanced themselves from me. They're doing me a favor. Thank you!
Such as the event in the picture above.
Fortunately, some of those mistakes are merely irritating and inconvenient rather than disastrous. I've barely missed disasters* on occasion, so I can appreciate the merely unpleasant.
-
*There was this one time that involved a burning candle, a full powder horn, and a distracted brain...
I am happy for others when things go well for them.
The friend who found $41,000 in a woodstove in his house? I was thrilled to hear that story as many times as he wanted to tell it. I felt good for him.
When someone gets their dream job, I'm genuinely happy for them.
Even when someone is excited about a new tattoo. I hate tattoos (when excessive), but I can be happy along with someone who is happy about getting yet another one.
When anyone gets a new car, a new house, a good relationship, another gun, or when their missing pet returns, I'm happier for having heard about it. Envy doesn't control me, even if I lack what they have.
It doesn't mean I wouldn't like to experience similar good things. But trying to rob someone else of their joy, or minimizing it to bring them down, doesn't make me any happier. I can't even imagine being like that.
The existence of billionaires doesn't hurt me.
Someone else's good luck doesn't cause me to have bad luck.
Someone else's happiness- as long as they don't get happy by violating the rights of others (and I have met those people)- doesn't take away from my own happiness.
I would never seek to use the political means to bring someone else down just because they have something I lack. That's the politics of envy.
Yet, this sometimes seems like the foundation of political government.
I guess when your logic and rational thinking skills appear to the other person to be superhuman, compared to their own ability, they just assume you're a computer.
It also seems to me that these people put the bar very low, so as to make themselves feel better.
It doesn't matter if you think machine guns are scary and don't want "those people" (whoever they may be) to have them. The worst people already have them.
I was disturbed to talk to someone who is generally pro-gun and find out he draws the line at machine guns. His reasoning is that he's scared of criminals having them, and because of this, he doesn't care what the Second Amendment says about the matter.
It's disappointing.
It's the same when someone believes "felons" lose rights.
I do believe I should keep an open mind about everything. But I’ve already heard all the arguments people make in favor of slavery. I’m not going to waste my time reconsidering the same old arguments as though I haven’t heard and dismissed them all before.
I’ve heard all the arguments in favor of government. Hundreds of times or more. Present a new one, and I’ll honestly consider it. Otherwise, no. It has been weighed, measured, and found deficient. Try again, with something new, or be dismissed.
You don’t need to keep evaluating the same old arguments as though they are new. I don't think that makes you close-minded; it's a better use of your finite time.
When my daughter Cheyenne was killed by a drug-impaired driver, I was devastated. But I didn't start being in favor of prohibition, checkpoints, or vehicle kill-switches to make sure no one is allowed to drive impaired. Those measures also kill people, destroy individual liberty, and violate individual rights. The trade-off isn't worth it. (Plus, none of the liberty-killing measures that are already imposed saved her anyway.)
Weak, unethical people advocate violating the rights of others because tragedy has touched them personally. They disgust me more than I can express. It's personal.
I am sad that my daughter was killed, but life in a police state isn't worth living. Liberty is dangerous. The dangers of liberty are obvious. The dangers of "safety" are often hidden from you until it's too late.
There are those who respect your liberty and your rights, and there are those who want you controlled. They may say it's for your own good, for the good of society, for the safety of children, or for the good of the nation. It's not.
There is no "good" in those excuses, and any "safety" is counterbalanced by the dangers and deaths they'll pretend don't happen. Or, that the victim "deserved" for not surrendering their autonomy to the State.
Yes, if you respect people's rights, some innocent people will die. Imposing "safety" on society just shifts the deaths somewhat; it doesn't prevent them. Some different people will die as a result. But you won't be guilty of violating everyone's rights in a misguided attempt to "save" some while sacrificing others.
It's easier to find (and lie about) the actual deaths which have occurred; it's harder to come up with realistic numbers of how many will die in the future from your "safety" rules.
It's also easy for them to ignore those who have died in the past through the enforcement of that type of rule.
Liberty is worth the costs; slavery... not so much.
I have read a great many horrifying things that excuse and justify government, theft, coercion, etc. I couldn't always finish it, since some were really long and convoluted ways to keep making the same bad point over and over again, but I made an honest effort.
I understood the argument when I was done, even though I obviously disagreed with the conclusion.
I could tell you the reasons why I disagree. If there was some truth to be found in there, I believe I would have accepted it. I have probably done so. I do agree that theft and murder can be quite pragmatic, even though they are evil.
It's good to see how the enemy thinks and what he believes.
Statists either won't do that at all, or I don't encounter any who will.
They are content in their ignorance. It makes them proud. They want you to know just how comforting their ignorance is. And they'll comment and immediately block you so you'll know they "won" the debate.
Exposure to terrible people and their thoughts is painful, but until you know how they think, you're up against an unknown.
One day, she saw me using my pocketknife, and she demanded it. I said she couldn’t have it. She started throwing a tantrum- as was her habit.
I was immediately attacked by my wife and in-laws. I was scolded that I can’t let her see something and then not let her have it.
I let it be known that’s not how I operate.
I asked what was going to happen when she was older and saw a car she wanted. Was she going to think she was entitled to it and just take it? I said, "She’ll end up in prison or dead if you keep raising her this way".
My perfectly reasonable observation was not appreciated.
She was also much larger and stronger than other kids her own age, and because of how she was being raised, she would steal other kids' toys and snacks and bully them. She'd hit kids who didn't do what she wanted. She'd scream and scream at anyone who made her mad- and she was always mad!
Then she'd cry because no one wanted to play with her.
Adding to my reputation as the mean one, I would tell her that if she wanted kids to play with her, she would have to be nicer to them. Don't hit them, don't scream at them, and don't take their stuff. You might be shocked, but I got berated for that, too.
I sometimes wonder what happened to her. I fear I might have been her only hope at that point in her life, and I wasn't around very long.
I think of her when I see videos of entitled people committing crimes, and sometimes getting treated to a dose of self-defense. Raising a kid that way is not being kind to them. It's setting them up for failure- to be hurt or killed by an intended victim. Her family was working to doom her to that fate. I tried to plant some healthy seeds.
My friend, known by all as "Video Bob", eventually hired a mutual acquaintance to work there part-time. A couple of months later, the place got robbed, and the acquaintance, who was the one working at the time, was tied up, and the robbers got away with all the money in the register.
Only, things didn't quite add up. No one bought his story, which seemed more like the acquaintance was trying out versions of events to see which one people believed.
Our suspicion was that the robbery was staged, with the acquaintance in on it. As these things tend to do, the "official" investigation dragged on, and I moved away, so I don't know how things turned out.
But this made me think of how the state works. It's all staged. The state causes a situation, plays the victim, lies about it, pursues its own bad "solution", and we are all robbed of our money, our privacy, and our future.
Worse, the state investigates the situation and finds it did nothing wrong, then doubles down on the wrongdoing it was already engaged in.
It doesn't seem like anyone would still buy it, but most of them do. I think considering the implications is just too uncomfortable for most people.
