I'm just sitting here wondering what the real difference is between Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)- US "dollars"- and welfare.
Neither has any basis in reality or inherent value. Both are printed or electronically created out of thin air, and backed by nothing and really paid for by no one. Other than the fact that the more of either one there is, the less value each "dollar" has. Just like any other counterfeiting operation.
The use of either one also contributes to the coming economic collapse.
The only difference I can see is one of perception.
I haven't had a single paper "dollar" in my wallet for over a couple of weeks now, but in my pocket I have a couple of Morgan silver dollars, and a few ounces of .999 silver. So, I'm "broke", yet I'm not.
Right now, that real money doesn't work well at most stores or for paying bills, but I don't carry it for "right now" anyway. I carry it for when a paper (or electronic) "dollar" finds its true value. And, I carry it in case of emergency, in the hopes that if I find myself in dire circumstances I will have something of value to trade, since I usually have no FRNs.
As long as other people keep accepting FRNs in trade, I will continue to accept them. But the instant that trust starts to fade I will start only accepting REAL money for goods or services. I hope others are smart enough to do the same. Let the hyperinflation be powerless against you.
.
Monday, December 03, 2012
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Economic contemplation
I should probably go out and get one of those "jobs" I've heard so much about and not spend so much time writing.
If anyone is feeling a little generous, this would be a nice time to donate a little bit to my Paypal account.
But, if not, I completely understand.
.
If anyone is feeling a little generous, this would be a nice time to donate a little bit to my Paypal account.
But, if not, I completely understand.
.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
"No true Scotsbertarian"
How many times have you heard- or written- "No real libertarian would ever...."? Did someone throw the "No true Scotsman" fallacy in the mix right away? Did it actually apply?
Because it often doesn't.
If you say "no true Scotsman can survive a complete decapitation", or "no true Scotsman is native to the Moon" then you'd be correct. By definition. It's not the same as saying "no true Scotsman would wear pink socks".
I've seen that fallacy called into play when someone says "no libertarian can be in favor of any form of taxation" or "no libertarian can support the 'troops'"
Yet, it is accurate to say that "no true Scotsman can flap his arms and fly to the moon", because any creature which could do that would not be human. By definition he could not be a "true Scotsman".
So it is with the "pro-tax libertarian"- taxation is theft and is enforced by violating the ZAP, and the same goes for military "service". Since the ZAP is the definition of "libertarian", no one can support those things and be a libertarian. At least not a consistent one.
But, if someone claims "no real libertarian would use a public library", then you'd be correct in calling this a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There is no wrong in using what you are forced to pay for, as long as you don't advocate the continuation of the theft. There will be a difference of opinion from person to person, and neither side is automatically eliminated from the category of "real libertarian".
Just because I apply a label to myself doesn't make the label accurate. If I fit the definition, then I am what I say. If I don't, then I am something other than what I claim to be. And, that's fine. People get confused over what words mean all the time. It's not worth fighting over. If you don't fit the definition, find where you do fit and correct what you call yourself. But if you are not a Scotsman, don't be offended when someone points it out.
.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
See how helpful The State is?
I ran across a story in the news a couple of days ago. It said that "For the growing number of teenage girls who are incarcerated each year, detention may be the only time they get health care."
I see more than one disturbing thing in that sentence.
First, that the number of caged teenage girls is increasing.
Second, that State interference has made health care inaccessible to so many people.
And third, that some people try to justify the caging by pointing out that these girls need health care they aren't otherwise getting.
Even though the one girl mentioned in the story wasn't there directly as a consequence of the stupid and evil War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs, I'd be willing to bet money her crime is somehow tied to prohibition. As is the vast majority of the abuse and other health issues discovered in the health screenings
End that idiotic policy, prohibition, and there would be a fraction of the current number of political prisoners held in cages in America in a few years- if not immediately. And the rest of the crimes caused or exacerbated by prohibition would dwindle as well. It would put reavers out of a job, which would be a good thing. It would diminish the power of the judges. It would help ALL of society. Except those who drag society down- the drug warriors and their buddies on the violent supply side (with considerable overlap between the two) of the drug trade. Those allies are a burden that society can't afford. Ending prohibition would pull the rug out from under them. Soon isn't soon enough.
.
I see more than one disturbing thing in that sentence.
First, that the number of caged teenage girls is increasing.
Second, that State interference has made health care inaccessible to so many people.
And third, that some people try to justify the caging by pointing out that these girls need health care they aren't otherwise getting.
Even though the one girl mentioned in the story wasn't there directly as a consequence of the stupid and evil War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs, I'd be willing to bet money her crime is somehow tied to prohibition. As is the vast majority of the abuse and other health issues discovered in the health screenings
End that idiotic policy, prohibition, and there would be a fraction of the current number of political prisoners held in cages in America in a few years- if not immediately. And the rest of the crimes caused or exacerbated by prohibition would dwindle as well. It would put reavers out of a job, which would be a good thing. It would diminish the power of the judges. It would help ALL of society. Except those who drag society down- the drug warriors and their buddies on the violent supply side (with considerable overlap between the two) of the drug trade. Those allies are a burden that society can't afford. Ending prohibition would pull the rug out from under them. Soon isn't soon enough.
.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Control stifles economic process
Control stifles economic process
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 26, 2012.)
In normal life, people generally see a monopoly as a bad thing. Lack of competition leads to poor services or products, inflated prices, and customer service gets put on the back burner because the money will come in regardless.
Business monopolies can only exist in collusion with government. Without the protectionism of regulation and red tape, competitors would quickly arise to satisfy the unhappy customers. Government stifles this natural process for the benefit of its corporate supporters and donors, and to the detriment of everyone else.
Government is the ultimate destructive monopoly. One whose "services" you can't even refuse. This results in the worst possible scenario.
Why pretend this particular monopoly is good?
A local church doesn't declare rulership over its neighborhood; instead the members mix and mingle in the community on equal footing with members of other churches whose "territories" overlap without borders. You don't tithe to your neighbor's church, you are not subject to its rules, nor are you entitled to any help from them. Those who wish to opt out of membership altogether are not assaulted or robbed for not going along, nor are they forced to leave the area.
A legitimate government would follow the same template: overlapping autonomous "associations" competing for "customers". The only universal rules that would apply everywhere would be based on Natural Law: don't attack others, and don't steal or damage other people's property. Everything else is a matter of opinion.
Overlapping governments could allow people to contract with them, pay the applicable taxes, abide by a set of rules, and get specified benefits in return. Your neighbors on each side might contract with different governments than you do. When signed up with one government you owe no taxes to the others and could get nothing from them without paying for it directly on a per use basis. Only those who wanted to finance a service would have to.
Those who choose to not join any government at all would still have to pay for any government service they wished to use, or they could choose a non-governmental provider, since a lack of a monopolistic government would allow a market in services to develop- including those things people wrongly assume can only be provided by government, such as roads and bike paths, security, education, water and sewer, and justice. Anyone who feels they do not need any particular service would not be forced to pay for it. Then the market would decide whose services were superior and which would die off.
Everyone wins except those who want to justify their coercion and force everyone into a "one size fits all" mold.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 26, 2012.)
In normal life, people generally see a monopoly as a bad thing. Lack of competition leads to poor services or products, inflated prices, and customer service gets put on the back burner because the money will come in regardless.
Business monopolies can only exist in collusion with government. Without the protectionism of regulation and red tape, competitors would quickly arise to satisfy the unhappy customers. Government stifles this natural process for the benefit of its corporate supporters and donors, and to the detriment of everyone else.
Government is the ultimate destructive monopoly. One whose "services" you can't even refuse. This results in the worst possible scenario.
Why pretend this particular monopoly is good?
A local church doesn't declare rulership over its neighborhood; instead the members mix and mingle in the community on equal footing with members of other churches whose "territories" overlap without borders. You don't tithe to your neighbor's church, you are not subject to its rules, nor are you entitled to any help from them. Those who wish to opt out of membership altogether are not assaulted or robbed for not going along, nor are they forced to leave the area.
A legitimate government would follow the same template: overlapping autonomous "associations" competing for "customers". The only universal rules that would apply everywhere would be based on Natural Law: don't attack others, and don't steal or damage other people's property. Everything else is a matter of opinion.
Overlapping governments could allow people to contract with them, pay the applicable taxes, abide by a set of rules, and get specified benefits in return. Your neighbors on each side might contract with different governments than you do. When signed up with one government you owe no taxes to the others and could get nothing from them without paying for it directly on a per use basis. Only those who wanted to finance a service would have to.
Those who choose to not join any government at all would still have to pay for any government service they wished to use, or they could choose a non-governmental provider, since a lack of a monopolistic government would allow a market in services to develop- including those things people wrongly assume can only be provided by government, such as roads and bike paths, security, education, water and sewer, and justice. Anyone who feels they do not need any particular service would not be forced to pay for it. Then the market would decide whose services were superior and which would die off.
Everyone wins except those who want to justify their coercion and force everyone into a "one size fits all" mold.
.
Does complexity necessitate theft and coercion?
Does a complex society necessarily sustain its complexity through theft and coercion or could you have an honest complex society?
I have read things that explain how complex societies "require" a State, due to their complexity. That a monopoly of force is required to keep strangers from attacking and stealing.
The theory goes that simple societies, such as primitive hunter/gatherer societies, can get by without a State because of their small size (fewer individuals and less-complex connections between them), but once you get enough people in a society a State becomes "necessary" to keep people from attacking or robbing "strangers".
If that is true it seems more reason to revert (or advance) to simple societies again, rather than justification for The State and its requisite theft and coercion.
I hope it isn't true. I like technology and don't think very many of the people I like would survive long (or well) without it. Even though I also like primitive technology, too.
Of course, I can't really see how anointing some with special powers to rob and kill is better than letting the bad guys just take their chances with robbing or attacking people who might defend themselves. A monopoly of force just empowers those most likely to abuse it.
And, as I have pointed out in the past, just because something might have been true in the distant past doesn't necessarily mean it is still true today. Humans haven't changed, but their environment and their world has. I think technology- guns, internet/communication, and so forth- changes the game in fundamental ways. I think it puts people on a more even playing field and makes it harder for the bad guys to hide, once you remove the veil of legitimacy that the State seems to confer.
I would be perfectly willing to be a guinea pig and test the theory by living without a State keeping me or my enemies in line in a modern society.
.
I have read things that explain how complex societies "require" a State, due to their complexity. That a monopoly of force is required to keep strangers from attacking and stealing.
The theory goes that simple societies, such as primitive hunter/gatherer societies, can get by without a State because of their small size (fewer individuals and less-complex connections between them), but once you get enough people in a society a State becomes "necessary" to keep people from attacking or robbing "strangers".
If that is true it seems more reason to revert (or advance) to simple societies again, rather than justification for The State and its requisite theft and coercion.
I hope it isn't true. I like technology and don't think very many of the people I like would survive long (or well) without it. Even though I also like primitive technology, too.
Of course, I can't really see how anointing some with special powers to rob and kill is better than letting the bad guys just take their chances with robbing or attacking people who might defend themselves. A monopoly of force just empowers those most likely to abuse it.
And, as I have pointed out in the past, just because something might have been true in the distant past doesn't necessarily mean it is still true today. Humans haven't changed, but their environment and their world has. I think technology- guns, internet/communication, and so forth- changes the game in fundamental ways. I think it puts people on a more even playing field and makes it harder for the bad guys to hide, once you remove the veil of legitimacy that the State seems to confer.
I would be perfectly willing to be a guinea pig and test the theory by living without a State keeping me or my enemies in line in a modern society.
.
Monday, November 26, 2012
I Hate Cops
I Hate Cops
(Originally published in the Libertarian Enterprise)
(Originally published in the Libertarian Enterprise)
Let me just start by saying I hate cops. Yes, I admit it may be an irrational hatred, and I probably shouldn't hate them—and I certainly shouldn't admit it. If you are just going to scold me for that stop reading now and go do something else.
I am also going to make wholly appropriate comparisons of cops to Nazis. If that bothers you, or if you feel tempted to misapply "Godwin's Law" in order to try to shout me down, go away.
I am also going to tell you right now that I am happy every time I hear of a cop being killed. I don't care what the circumstances are. I hate the fact that innocent people also die in some of the same incidents. "Collateral damage" is NEVER justifiable. But fewer live cops is invariably a good thing. If you disagree, fine. Some people would disagree that the earth is not flat and doesn't rest on the back of a stack of giant turtles. And that is just how much sense your objection makes to me. So don't waste my time or yours, and stop reading now.
As I say, I hate cops. And I'm not too fond of copsuckers, either.
I would be perfectly willing to sign an agreement stating that I will exercise my right to never speak to another cop for the rest of my life (obviously, unless I attack or steal and someone else sends cops after me instead of dealing with me like a grown-up), and in exchange I can never, ever expect a cop to come to my aid in any way, in any situation. It would be a low price for such liberty. I'd sign such an agreement in half a heartbeat. The cops could go their way and I'd go mine. I'd never bother them in any way, as long as they didn't attack me.
I know that would disappoint all the sincere copsuckers who love to claim that libertarians are fond of "hating on cops" until someone attacks us, then we run crying and pissing ourselves, begging for the cops to save us. I've never seen it happen, and I suspect it is simply projection on the part of the emasculated copsuckers. So, yeah, I'd sign. I don't "need" cops. There is no situation so horrible that it can't be made much worse by adding a cop to the mix.
Sure, some of you may know cops who you believe are "good" people. And, as long as they aren't being a cop, maybe they are. I have known cops, and I have had long conversations with some, so don't whine that I just need to "sit down with a cop over a cup of coffee" so that I can understand them. That argument is so empty it is silly.
I suspect—no, I am certain that most Nazis were decent people to those they knew. Very few were genuine monsters. The uniform and the swastika was just a "job"—one that was socially acceptable and even honored in society. They probably felt good about their "service"—about protecting society from "anarchy". Most probably never personally killed an innocent person during their whole Nazi experience. And not many cops are Joe Arpaio, either.
Not all bad guys are cops, obviously, but few bad guys self-identify as openly as do the badged reavers. The guy standing in line behind you at the grocery store might be a member of a violent youth gang, but if he displays any outward signs of this affiliation, they are likely to be noticed (or correctly identified) only by other gang members. If all violent gang members wore a tag on their chest identifying them as such in plain language or hieroglyphs, people would treat them differently. People might be more likely to interpret more of their actions as a threat and might be quicker to employ self defense. Since the roster of gang members in any particular gang is so low, this wouldn't be a good survival tactic on their part.
No one could be blamed too harshly for shooting a self-identified gang member who made an aggressive move. Just like no one could have been blamed for shooting anyone wearing the swastika openly who makes a move that seems to be a credible threat to initiate force. Even a nice Nazi like Oskar Schindler would have been a legitimate target simply because of the swastika gang sign he wore (I'm assuming he wore it at least when he attended official functions).
Today, of all the violent gangs, only cops openly display gang signs for all to see and interpret. There is no chance of a mistaken identification. So far, they have suffered no real costs for this arrogance. This is because their gang is not only the largest and most violent, but because they have the support of those they consider their enemies (or their "crop")—"the public". Defend yourself from one of these gangsters and the hordes sent to avenge them is never-ending.
"Law enforcement" is an inexcusably evil "job". There is absolutely no decency in it. That wasn't true of "peace officers", but once they were replaced by "law enforcement officers" no good person could fill that "job". Once a cop enforces even one counterfeit "law"—any law attempting to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft—he becomes an evil thug. There are no two ways about it.
I don't fear cops, except when forced to deal with one. Too many innocent people get murdered on the altar of "Officer Safety" for my comfort, and there's no telling what will set the twitchy, guilt-ridden vermin off. So, yes, any interaction with a potential murderer is upsetting, especially since I never choose to interact with them voluntarily.
My most recent encounter with a LEO happened while I was driving my dad's pickup (I have been without a functioning vehicle for nearly a year now) a few blocks—just across the state line so my sister could pick up an item from the grocery store. I was pulled over because the license plate light wasn't shining. No aggression or theft on my part. Nothing even "unsafe" about that at all—simply a control/tracking issue. Something cops are becoming increasingly obsessed over.
The parasite approached with exaggerated caution and warned me to put my hands where he could see them. Coward. If I were going to defend myself from him (in today's climate, such a reasonable action is suicidal), he would have already been shot. Or, I could have waited until he relaxed a little and turned to walk back to his ThugMobile, and then taken my time with aiming and all the technical details. Nope, it's all about setting the tone.
I couldn't find all the demanded "papers" in my dad's vehicle, and was warned that "in New Mexico it is required that ...". Funny, it seems that the cop isn't allowed to apply New Mexico "law" to cars registered in Texas, when the Texas "requirements" are different. But I neither know "the law", nor really care. My dad, however, later showed me the demanded piece of paper and it stated quite clearly what was "required"—and the Texico, New Mexico cop was wrong. Surprise, surprise.
I was let off, without even a warning ticket. However I find myself not wanting to travel anywhere. I am tired of being surrounded by these parasitic vermin and seeing their disgusting thieving beside the road every time I go anywhere—even if I am not the victim.
America IS a police state—and it is called "The United States of America". And I hate cops.
Deal with it.
.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The "Abolish the State button"
One of the standard arguments against liberty that always seems to crop up is that it is hopeless. The State in some form or another is inevitable. Liberty- anarchy- won't last long before another State grows out of the fertile soil; from the desires of weak-minded people to be led.
Why abolish The State if it'll just happen again?
OK, then.
I might as well never bathe or wash laundry again since I and my clothes will only get dirty and I'd have to wash again.
I might as well not eat since in a few hours I'll only get hungry once more.
Why bother even getting out of bed? At the end of the day I'll just need sleep again.
It's really a very childish justification.
Sure, a new State might arise before too long, but not immediately, and it would take some time for it to become tyrannical again. Is there no value to be found in the liberty the people would enjoy in the meantime? I think there is.
I'm willing to hit the "Abolish the State button" even if it only turns out to be a "reset button".
.
Why abolish The State if it'll just happen again?
OK, then.
I might as well never bathe or wash laundry again since I and my clothes will only get dirty and I'd have to wash again.
I might as well not eat since in a few hours I'll only get hungry once more.
Why bother even getting out of bed? At the end of the day I'll just need sleep again.
It's really a very childish justification.
Sure, a new State might arise before too long, but not immediately, and it would take some time for it to become tyrannical again. Is there no value to be found in the liberty the people would enjoy in the meantime? I think there is.
I'm willing to hit the "Abolish the State button" even if it only turns out to be a "reset button".
.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Addicted to a placebo during the plague
There once was a terrible disease that killed a great many people. It was such a fact of life that, while some people did move to new lands in an attempt to escape its ravages, most didn't recognize the disease as such even as it killed them. And, of those who tried to move beyond its reach, they invariably brought the sickness with them wherever they migrated.
A few doctors and pharmacists finally joined together, saying they would try to cure this horrible affliction. They worked very hard under unpleasant, and even dangerous, conditions to come up with a new medicine.
When they announced their success they were hailed as heroes.
The public believed the new medicine would cure the disease, or at least control its symptoms enough that it wouldn't kill as many people. Possibly, with the help of this new medicine, the disease could be harnessed, like a vaccine, to prevent even worse diseases.
So the new miracle drug was administered both as a cure for the disease and as a treatment to keep the disease from getting out of control- and at first it did seem to work. There were signs from the beginning, though, that things were not quite as advertised.
Sadly, as the years went by it turned out that this apparent success was mostly a placebo effect. It also turned out that the doctors and pharmacists hadn't really tried to cure the plague- only to rein it in. See, some of them liked some of the side-effects of the disease. It kept them in business, and allowed them to make a good living dealing with the symptoms. Some of them even intentionally infected unsuspecting people so that they could then "help" them feel better.
The worst was yet to come.
In time the disease came back with a vengeance. This time it was worse than ever. It had become immune to even the mitigating effects of the medicine. It was raging out of control and mutating in frightening new ways. The medicine had failed.
Yet, strange as it may seem, some of the people had become addicted to the medicine and didn't want to give it up- even refusing to admit that it had failed. Instead of finding an actual cure for the disease, they insisted that the medicine would have worked, if only it had been used as prescribed. They became almost rabid in their promotion of the medicine as a treatment (or even as a cure), even as it kept failing to work as advertised, and even as the disease became a raging epidemic, threatening a pandemic of disastrous proportions which needed only the smallest, unpredictable trigger to become highly fatal.
Anyone pointing out that the medicine had failed, and that changing the dosage or forcing doctors to prescribe it wouldn't change the fact that the medicine didn't actually contain the correct ingredients to cure the disease, became the enemy.
So, here we sit. In the midst of a plague of State that shows no signs of getting better any time soon, but instead seems guaranteed to get much worse before the inevitable collapse comes. While those addicted to the placebo of the Constitution refuse to break their addiction and embrace the actual cure that a few ignored or reviled underground experimenters have discovered.
The disease may still kill you since those infected are very dangerous, but once you inoculate yourself against it at least you won't be spreading the disease to new patients anymore. You will have become part of the cure rather than a contagious victim of denial.
.
A few doctors and pharmacists finally joined together, saying they would try to cure this horrible affliction. They worked very hard under unpleasant, and even dangerous, conditions to come up with a new medicine.
When they announced their success they were hailed as heroes.
The public believed the new medicine would cure the disease, or at least control its symptoms enough that it wouldn't kill as many people. Possibly, with the help of this new medicine, the disease could be harnessed, like a vaccine, to prevent even worse diseases.
So the new miracle drug was administered both as a cure for the disease and as a treatment to keep the disease from getting out of control- and at first it did seem to work. There were signs from the beginning, though, that things were not quite as advertised.
Sadly, as the years went by it turned out that this apparent success was mostly a placebo effect. It also turned out that the doctors and pharmacists hadn't really tried to cure the plague- only to rein it in. See, some of them liked some of the side-effects of the disease. It kept them in business, and allowed them to make a good living dealing with the symptoms. Some of them even intentionally infected unsuspecting people so that they could then "help" them feel better.
The worst was yet to come.
In time the disease came back with a vengeance. This time it was worse than ever. It had become immune to even the mitigating effects of the medicine. It was raging out of control and mutating in frightening new ways. The medicine had failed.
Yet, strange as it may seem, some of the people had become addicted to the medicine and didn't want to give it up- even refusing to admit that it had failed. Instead of finding an actual cure for the disease, they insisted that the medicine would have worked, if only it had been used as prescribed. They became almost rabid in their promotion of the medicine as a treatment (or even as a cure), even as it kept failing to work as advertised, and even as the disease became a raging epidemic, threatening a pandemic of disastrous proportions which needed only the smallest, unpredictable trigger to become highly fatal.
Anyone pointing out that the medicine had failed, and that changing the dosage or forcing doctors to prescribe it wouldn't change the fact that the medicine didn't actually contain the correct ingredients to cure the disease, became the enemy.
So, here we sit. In the midst of a plague of State that shows no signs of getting better any time soon, but instead seems guaranteed to get much worse before the inevitable collapse comes. While those addicted to the placebo of the Constitution refuse to break their addiction and embrace the actual cure that a few ignored or reviled underground experimenters have discovered.
The disease may still kill you since those infected are very dangerous, but once you inoculate yourself against it at least you won't be spreading the disease to new patients anymore. You will have become part of the cure rather than a contagious victim of denial.
.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Prejudiced for statism
Wow. I get really insulted when people make the erroneous conclusion that when I say something, I have their statist prejudices.
If I speak out against coerced X, don't assume I am against the voluntary equivalent of X.
A while back on the newspaper's site, I read about a woman who had stopped smoking- in part because her young daughter said it was "disgusting".
In a comment I wondered whether the daughter had come to the conclusion on her own, or whether others had planted this notion (which, by the way, I agree with) into her head. I mentioned "brainwashing".
I really didn't quite understand the objections to my comment at first.
Finally, after more commentary, I realized that while I was assuming that the others understood I was talking about other people- not the parents- putting ideas into the kid's head, the commenters assumed I was objecting to parents sharing their own opinions with their children.
It was a very statist assumption to make. So, I clarified:
I have a very hard time remembering that when I am trying to communicate with statists, even the simplest of assumptions can't be assumed. They have a hard time thinking without the statist prejudices.
I was waiting for someone to object by saying that by writing I am implanting my opinions in other people's kids' minds- but no one did. I would have simply said that I put my opinions (or truth) out there, and if their kids are influenced by me in any way, then I am impressed that they can read, and that they can understand what they read, and that they can think rationally about what they read. But that I am not forcing anyone to think about anything in any particular way.
So there! :P
.
If I speak out against coerced X, don't assume I am against the voluntary equivalent of X.
A while back on the newspaper's site, I read about a woman who had stopped smoking- in part because her young daughter said it was "disgusting".
In a comment I wondered whether the daughter had come to the conclusion on her own, or whether others had planted this notion (which, by the way, I agree with) into her head. I mentioned "brainwashing".
I really didn't quite understand the objections to my comment at first.
Finally, after more commentary, I realized that while I was assuming that the others understood I was talking about other people- not the parents- putting ideas into the kid's head, the commenters assumed I was objecting to parents sharing their own opinions with their children.
It was a very statist assumption to make. So, I clarified:
"I wasn't speaking of what parents tell their kids, but of what busybodies tell other peoples' kids.
And, no, I don't want other people telling my kids things 'for their own good', since very often it is a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. This is where you get 'authorities' telling your kids that 'guns are bad, mommy and daddy shouldn't have them, and if they do they are bad people. Or 'daddy is killing the planet by not watching his carbon footprint'.
This goes on in many parts of the country. Let me warn my kids of the dangers of smoking on my own, and I'll return the favor by not implanting my opinions in your kids' minds."
I have a very hard time remembering that when I am trying to communicate with statists, even the simplest of assumptions can't be assumed. They have a hard time thinking without the statist prejudices.
I was waiting for someone to object by saying that by writing I am implanting my opinions in other people's kids' minds- but no one did. I would have simply said that I put my opinions (or truth) out there, and if their kids are influenced by me in any way, then I am impressed that they can read, and that they can understand what they read, and that they can think rationally about what they read. But that I am not forcing anyone to think about anything in any particular way.
So there! :P
.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Secession talk makes me smile
Those people who are emotionally opposed to secession and the breakup of the "United" [sic] States remind me of those people you hear about from time to time who kept a dead loved-one's corpse in the house for a few years, talking to it and ignoring the stench of death.
I am all in favor of secession. Individual secession is my favorite, of course, but all secession is a step in the right direction.
Secession is like chopping up a gigantic, evil, GMO super-squid. The more pieces you chop it into, the better, but all the chopping is a good thing. Each chop makes me happy to see.
So, keep chopping and support any and all secession advocates- just don't let them know we'll keep seceding from the tentacles they revere, too.
.
I am all in favor of secession. Individual secession is my favorite, of course, but all secession is a step in the right direction.
Secession is like chopping up a gigantic, evil, GMO super-squid. The more pieces you chop it into, the better, but all the chopping is a good thing. Each chop makes me happy to see.
So, keep chopping and support any and all secession advocates- just don't let them know we'll keep seceding from the tentacles they revere, too.
.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
State should stay out of economy
State should stay out of economy
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 19, 2012)
The Clovis cosmetics plant fiasco is a good demonstration of the truth that the best thing government can do, about the economy and everything else, is: nothing. It's a result that it seems anyone who doesn't look at life through the "beer goggles" of government could have seen coming. Judging from comments I saw when the deal was first announced, I'd say many are not surprised.
Yes, the area could use more jobs, but handing out "tax" money to bring them in is just not a good idea, even if you believe it is ethical to do so. Apparently, it doesn't even work.
By all means give new companies a tax break, as a good first step. All new companies. Don't play favorites. Then get rid of local "laws" that prevent some businesses from operating in the area, eliminate red tape and anti-business regulations and zoning, and eliminate all the government fees and licenses. Deal with any actual problems- fraud, theft, faulty products, breach of contract- as they arise rather than punishing everyone based upon "what might happen".
Get out of the way and allow the free market to exist, and then stay out of the way to allow it to work. This is a big problem crippling the economy all across America: there has been no free market in at least a century. And yet, economic woes are somehow still blamed on "too little regulation" by the socialists who get all the attention. It's sickening.
Blaming the free market, or some imaginary "lack of regulation" for recent economic woes is like blaming ghosts for the loss of your chickens. The supposed culprit was nowhere near the scene of the crime.
America can't afford this kind of economic interference anymore. If it ever could.
The city still claims it didn't lose the money it handed out. Sure, the city can foreclose on the property in order to get its "investment" back- but unless someone buys that foreclosed property, what good does that do? The money is still wasted. It doesn't seem that the property is in great demand, otherwise someone would have purchased it on their own, voluntarily, without expecting government to give them money for the project.
Maybe somehow the deal will still pan out. Or, perhaps the property will get foreclosed and someone else will come along and buy it to start a business that will boost the local economy. If this happens, no one will have learned anything, but the harm will at least be mitigated. That's better than nothing.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 19, 2012)
The Clovis cosmetics plant fiasco is a good demonstration of the truth that the best thing government can do, about the economy and everything else, is: nothing. It's a result that it seems anyone who doesn't look at life through the "beer goggles" of government could have seen coming. Judging from comments I saw when the deal was first announced, I'd say many are not surprised.
Yes, the area could use more jobs, but handing out "tax" money to bring them in is just not a good idea, even if you believe it is ethical to do so. Apparently, it doesn't even work.
By all means give new companies a tax break, as a good first step. All new companies. Don't play favorites. Then get rid of local "laws" that prevent some businesses from operating in the area, eliminate red tape and anti-business regulations and zoning, and eliminate all the government fees and licenses. Deal with any actual problems- fraud, theft, faulty products, breach of contract- as they arise rather than punishing everyone based upon "what might happen".
Get out of the way and allow the free market to exist, and then stay out of the way to allow it to work. This is a big problem crippling the economy all across America: there has been no free market in at least a century. And yet, economic woes are somehow still blamed on "too little regulation" by the socialists who get all the attention. It's sickening.
Blaming the free market, or some imaginary "lack of regulation" for recent economic woes is like blaming ghosts for the loss of your chickens. The supposed culprit was nowhere near the scene of the crime.
America can't afford this kind of economic interference anymore. If it ever could.
The city still claims it didn't lose the money it handed out. Sure, the city can foreclose on the property in order to get its "investment" back- but unless someone buys that foreclosed property, what good does that do? The money is still wasted. It doesn't seem that the property is in great demand, otherwise someone would have purchased it on their own, voluntarily, without expecting government to give them money for the project.
Maybe somehow the deal will still pan out. Or, perhaps the property will get foreclosed and someone else will come along and buy it to start a business that will boost the local economy. If this happens, no one will have learned anything, but the harm will at least be mitigated. That's better than nothing.
.
Government should stay out...
I often hear a certain segment of the population say government should stay out of our bedrooms. True. But it doesn't go far enough.
They- those individuals who lower themselves to the point of working for government in some capacity- should stay off our property completely.
They should stay out of our bedrooms, our kitchens, our medicine cabinets, our pockets, our living rooms, our garages, our bars, our pet stores, our restaurants, our gun shops, our doctors' offices, our schools, our hospitals, our banks, our factories, our airports ... government should stay out of our lives.
A complete separation of life and State. Staying out of our bedrooms is just the beginning.
.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Biology trumps all- except denial
I hesitate to post this one, because I know people will make assumptions and jump to conclusions and use this opinion as justification to dislike me. Oh well. Truth sometimes hurts.
There is a woman I have known since I was a teenager. She has been a friend of one of my sisters since they were pretty young. Her husband was a youth director at a church. He apparently got caught "hitting on" (sexting? flirting with?) "young people" and lost his job. And lost his wife. He admitted doing it, and said he "has had this problem for a long time". (I neither know nor care whether he actually did anything physical.)
There are plenty of legitimate reasons his wife could be angry at him or dislike him over this. His violation of their marriage contract, for example. Or the loss of his job. Maybe even the fact that he used his position of "authority" as a way to find extramarital adventure.
But not because of who he is attracted to. That isn't a "problem", it is basic biological programming. Yet this is her apparent justification for ending the marriage in disgust.
Once a young person develops secondary sexual characteristics they become attractive to any normal sexually aware human (of whichever sex is attracted to their sex). And, no person who is attracted to these sexually-developed young people can be honestly called a "pedophile"- these are not "children" in any meaningful sense of the word. The artificial extension of "childhood" is a tragedy that is having disastrous social consequences, of which this subject is just one example.
Throughout most of human history, people of this age were sexually active, married, and reproducing. It is not "wrong"; it just is what it is. Youth is also attractive since that is a marker of "good breeding potential". Sounds crass, but it is true, biologically and psychologically. People can lie to others, or even to themselves, about this attraction, but it doesn't change the reality of the biological programming.
This biological truth trumps religion. It trumps "law". It trumps a wife's wishes. It even trumps social programming and the risk of self-loathing.
I suspect a lot of people who find a job working with young people seek that kind of job specifically because of this stimulation. Most of them probably never act on it due to social taboos, and they may not even recognize this attraction in themselves because of how they have been trained. But it is there. And sometimes, in some people, it will come to the surface.
As long as it is mutually consensual, no "law" can make it wrong. If it isn't mutually consensual, no "law" can make it right. And that includes sex.
.
There is a woman I have known since I was a teenager. She has been a friend of one of my sisters since they were pretty young. Her husband was a youth director at a church. He apparently got caught "hitting on" (sexting? flirting with?) "young people" and lost his job. And lost his wife. He admitted doing it, and said he "has had this problem for a long time". (I neither know nor care whether he actually did anything physical.)
There are plenty of legitimate reasons his wife could be angry at him or dislike him over this. His violation of their marriage contract, for example. Or the loss of his job. Maybe even the fact that he used his position of "authority" as a way to find extramarital adventure.
But not because of who he is attracted to. That isn't a "problem", it is basic biological programming. Yet this is her apparent justification for ending the marriage in disgust.
Once a young person develops secondary sexual characteristics they become attractive to any normal sexually aware human (of whichever sex is attracted to their sex). And, no person who is attracted to these sexually-developed young people can be honestly called a "pedophile"- these are not "children" in any meaningful sense of the word. The artificial extension of "childhood" is a tragedy that is having disastrous social consequences, of which this subject is just one example.
Throughout most of human history, people of this age were sexually active, married, and reproducing. It is not "wrong"; it just is what it is. Youth is also attractive since that is a marker of "good breeding potential". Sounds crass, but it is true, biologically and psychologically. People can lie to others, or even to themselves, about this attraction, but it doesn't change the reality of the biological programming.
This biological truth trumps religion. It trumps "law". It trumps a wife's wishes. It even trumps social programming and the risk of self-loathing.
I suspect a lot of people who find a job working with young people seek that kind of job specifically because of this stimulation. Most of them probably never act on it due to social taboos, and they may not even recognize this attraction in themselves because of how they have been trained. But it is there. And sometimes, in some people, it will come to the surface.
As long as it is mutually consensual, no "law" can make it wrong. If it isn't mutually consensual, no "law" can make it right. And that includes sex.
.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Gasoline at $9 per gallon? For your own good...
I have heard from time to time that the government's "Energy Secretary" (what a useless "job"!) wants gas prices to be between $7 and $9 per gallon, in order to coerce less usage. I wouldn't doubt it, even though the tale may be apocryphal.
My dad blames this on (false) environmentalists. He's missing the mark.
The government is anti-travel. It has been for a long time- since long before I was born.
Just look at all the anti-travel "laws" and regulations it has put in place: "driver's licenses", license plates for cars, "drunk driving" laws, speed limits- all violations of the fundamental human right to travel unmolested, and all imposed by government. Notice the pattern?
Sure, special interests/idiots clamor for one restriction or another, "for the common good" or for "safety", or to prevent theft, or whatever, and since the implications of the suggestions are anti-travel, the government is very happy to oblige. The new restrictions are put in place and travel gets outlawed just a little more.
Who is really to blame? It isn't the (false) environmentalists, it isn't the AAA (in the case of those "driver's licenses" all those years ago), it isn't the tee-totalers- they are just the useful idiots the government uses to get what it wants imposed on the rest of us. And when we reject the lies and object to the new restrictions, we are castigated for being "selfish", inconsiderate, or " a danger to society".
Just like the gun "laws" imposed by this same herd of anti-liberty bigots, the restrictions on travel bring to mind just one thought: Not one more inch!
.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Seeing both sides
I think I see both (or more) sides of too many issues. Seriously.
The "welfare thing" for example. And lots of others.
It doesn't help me much, when trying to decide whom to defend. It doesn't mean I think both sides are valid for me. Or ethical for me. But it makes it harder to condemn others for some of their positions. Maybe that's a good thing.
If you are personally attacking the innocent, or stealing or destroying their property (or the value thereof), then I cut you no slack. This is why I can't excuse cops for their acts.
But, on so many other issues the "black and white" is not so clear... if it even exists at all. At least as I see it.
Certainty is so much more comfortable.
.
The "welfare thing" for example. And lots of others.
It doesn't help me much, when trying to decide whom to defend. It doesn't mean I think both sides are valid for me. Or ethical for me. But it makes it harder to condemn others for some of their positions. Maybe that's a good thing.
If you are personally attacking the innocent, or stealing or destroying their property (or the value thereof), then I cut you no slack. This is why I can't excuse cops for their acts.
But, on so many other issues the "black and white" is not so clear... if it even exists at all. At least as I see it.
Certainty is so much more comfortable.
.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Emotionalism Part 2- "Super-Love"
As I said in Part 1, I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders", while the irrational "super-love" frequently goes to "law enforcement" and the military. But this is just two sides of the same corroded coin, and is often due to people being "too close" to the issue.
I'll focus on the irrational "super-love" this time.
One thing that really bothers me are those libertarians who make excuses for the inexcusable. Those who "super-love" the enforcers (and to a lesser degree, any government tool). Maybe a loved one is a cop or in the military, or for some other reason a strong feeling of devotion is experienced toward these enforcers and hired killers. Maybe they are under the belief that enforcers are "a vital necessity" to keep predators from hurting innocent people. Sure, it's a delusion, but it can seem very "reasonable" to them.
Recently on facebook I made a comment that was not "respectful" of the FBI. In the story someone said, of their consideration to join something like the FBI, that they wanted to "stop bad". O---kay....
I responded:
It seemed a common sense reply to what I assume was a sincere remark. I see nothing in my comment that should be offensive to any honest and consistent person. Or so I thought...
I was told, in a reply from a self-proclaimed libertarian (my "boss"), that:
My response to this comment was too short due to me responding from my Kindle, so I will expand it here.
FBI agents are not "good guys". For several reasons.
First, they are among the "true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others"- if they restricted this killing and harming to people who were initiating force or stealing, then they would be provisional "good guys". They don't.
Cops of any sort are NOT "protecting the public", they are the primary predators in society today. And their actions and enforcement of those admittedly "bad and stupid policies" is the only thing that gives those bad and stupid policies the ability to harm anyone. The actions those cops take protect the freelance predators from reaping the just consequences of their actions. This is even pretending there is such a thing as a "good cop".
And to claim that "not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys" is missing the truth. The FBI is unconstitutional. If you believe the Constitution is what gives the US government its legitimacy, then FBI agents are bad guys before they even enforce their first counterfeit "law", and in doing so either initiate force or steal. And kidnap. Their very existence is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution- where is a federal police force specifically authorized? Nowhere. If it isn't specifically authorized, it is illegal. So every FBI employee is a criminal. If you are not burdened by devotion to a constitution, then you don't even have to go that far to see that they are all bad- their initiation of force and their other enforcement of counterfeit "laws" is enough to show their wrongness regardless of their lack of Constitutional authority. Even when occasional good comes from their actions.
A "good cop" would not keep his job for even one day. The first counterfeit "law" he was caught not enforcing would be his last act as a cop. You can not enforce these things and be a good guy. Not even once. There is no such thing as a good cop. But there are some that are better and some that are worse.
As for the bureaucrats- name one bureaucrat who never violates the property rights of those who are forced to deal with his bureaucracy. You can't violate property rights as part of your job and be a "good guy". So if you are collecting fines, fees, selling licenses, writing up ordinances, dealing in permits, or any other bureaucratic "job", you are not a good guy. Not in your "official capacity", anyway. But, I admit, you may do some good on occasion- particularly by breaking the rules for the cause of liberty or to protect an innocent person from the unjust rules. It would still be better to get an honest job.
If, as the commenter admitted, people have "an individual right to make stupid choices", then using violence and kidnapping to violate this right is evil. Period.
Defending these guys is a very anti-libertarian thing to do.
I understand the desire to throw support behind something that at first glance sounds like it might be good for you, individually, or for "society". (What I don't understand is the fear or helplessness that seems to be at the root of the belief that these thugs "protect" you.) I understand the desire to look up to "authority", or someone you have been trained from birth to respect and revere. It just really bothers me when libertarians ignore the principles of liberty because they have let their emotions get in the way.
.
I'll focus on the irrational "super-love" this time.
One thing that really bothers me are those libertarians who make excuses for the inexcusable. Those who "super-love" the enforcers (and to a lesser degree, any government tool). Maybe a loved one is a cop or in the military, or for some other reason a strong feeling of devotion is experienced toward these enforcers and hired killers. Maybe they are under the belief that enforcers are "a vital necessity" to keep predators from hurting innocent people. Sure, it's a delusion, but it can seem very "reasonable" to them.
Recently on facebook I made a comment that was not "respectful" of the FBI. In the story someone said, of their consideration to join something like the FBI, that they wanted to "stop bad". O---kay....
I responded:
"You want to 'stop bad'? Don't join a gang like the FBI. Refuse to attack innocent people and don't violate anyone's property rights. Not even if it's your 'job'. Don't support the evil and stupid 'war on politically incorrect drugs' which fuels so much of the aggression in America and beyond. And stand up to those who do- especially when they lie and tell you they are 'the good guys'. Don't be a part of the problem."
It seemed a common sense reply to what I assume was a sincere remark. I see nothing in my comment that should be offensive to any honest and consistent person. Or so I thought...
I was told, in a reply from a self-proclaimed libertarian (my "boss"), that:
"[N]ot every good guy is a bad guy. There are true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others, and it takes good cops at all levels to protect the public from that. Are there personal violations that police or other government officials cause, to people and/or their property? Of course, that is and always has been the case. But not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys. There are more bad or stupid policies, like drug control, that detract from freedoms. I agree with you that people have an individual right to make stupid choices."
My response to this comment was too short due to me responding from my Kindle, so I will expand it here.
FBI agents are not "good guys". For several reasons.
First, they are among the "true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others"- if they restricted this killing and harming to people who were initiating force or stealing, then they would be provisional "good guys". They don't.
Cops of any sort are NOT "protecting the public", they are the primary predators in society today. And their actions and enforcement of those admittedly "bad and stupid policies" is the only thing that gives those bad and stupid policies the ability to harm anyone. The actions those cops take protect the freelance predators from reaping the just consequences of their actions. This is even pretending there is such a thing as a "good cop".
And to claim that "not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys" is missing the truth. The FBI is unconstitutional. If you believe the Constitution is what gives the US government its legitimacy, then FBI agents are bad guys before they even enforce their first counterfeit "law", and in doing so either initiate force or steal. And kidnap. Their very existence is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution- where is a federal police force specifically authorized? Nowhere. If it isn't specifically authorized, it is illegal. So every FBI employee is a criminal. If you are not burdened by devotion to a constitution, then you don't even have to go that far to see that they are all bad- their initiation of force and their other enforcement of counterfeit "laws" is enough to show their wrongness regardless of their lack of Constitutional authority. Even when occasional good comes from their actions.
A "good cop" would not keep his job for even one day. The first counterfeit "law" he was caught not enforcing would be his last act as a cop. You can not enforce these things and be a good guy. Not even once. There is no such thing as a good cop. But there are some that are better and some that are worse.
As for the bureaucrats- name one bureaucrat who never violates the property rights of those who are forced to deal with his bureaucracy. You can't violate property rights as part of your job and be a "good guy". So if you are collecting fines, fees, selling licenses, writing up ordinances, dealing in permits, or any other bureaucratic "job", you are not a good guy. Not in your "official capacity", anyway. But, I admit, you may do some good on occasion- particularly by breaking the rules for the cause of liberty or to protect an innocent person from the unjust rules. It would still be better to get an honest job.
If, as the commenter admitted, people have "an individual right to make stupid choices", then using violence and kidnapping to violate this right is evil. Period.
Defending these guys is a very anti-libertarian thing to do.
I understand the desire to throw support behind something that at first glance sounds like it might be good for you, individually, or for "society". (What I don't understand is the fear or helplessness that seems to be at the root of the belief that these thugs "protect" you.) I understand the desire to look up to "authority", or someone you have been trained from birth to respect and revere. It just really bothers me when libertarians ignore the principles of liberty because they have let their emotions get in the way.
.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Respecting liberty to fix America
Respecting liberty to fix America
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 12, 2012)
What is "America"? America isn't the landmass, although it does sit on a spectacular and rich piece of real estate.
America isn't the shared history, although that is a vital thread that gets neglected, inverted, or obscured today.
America isn't the US government or those employed by it, nor is it the massive mountain of "laws" that government has imposed.
America isn't even the individuals living here. Many who have lived here for generations, both in and out of government, violate everything America is with everything they advocate or support.
What America is, at its very core, is a way of respecting the liberty of the individual that had never been tried before.
An argument could be made that it was the Constitution- or better yet, the ideals spelled out in the Declaration of Independence- that made America what it was. Not perfect, but a good start.
A great many people feel, for one reason or another, that they owe an obligation of obedience, or even loyalty, to the government authority in America. What they miss is the fact that this "authority" is not embodied in any person or group of people. Not the president, the congress, or any employee or agent of the government. If there is any authority called "The United States of America" that you should respect, it is only in the Constitution.
Any government employee, from the president to the congress or the Supreme Court, is a legitimate government authority only as long as he strictly obeys the law that sets out his job parameters. When he fudges that obedience he is no longer a legitimate authority and you owe him nothing.
That means if he works for the government and supports any gun "law", no matter how "reasonable", he loses all authority. That means if he rules that the Patriot Act is "legal" (in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution) he is no longer an authority. It means if he signs a health care bill, or a wealth redistribution plan, or keeps supporting any department or agency not specifically authorized, by name and function, in the Constitution, he has lost his claim to be an authority of the government. He is not "America".
This realization may disturb some people, but it may allow others to finally defeat the cognitive dissonance caused by feeling they are supposed to respect the government authority, while knowing that what government employees and agents do is wrong. They have been misinterpreting just what the authority is all along and throwing their support or obedience behind the false authority.
Getting this right is the first step in fixing America.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 12, 2012)
What is "America"? America isn't the landmass, although it does sit on a spectacular and rich piece of real estate.
America isn't the shared history, although that is a vital thread that gets neglected, inverted, or obscured today.
America isn't the US government or those employed by it, nor is it the massive mountain of "laws" that government has imposed.
America isn't even the individuals living here. Many who have lived here for generations, both in and out of government, violate everything America is with everything they advocate or support.
What America is, at its very core, is a way of respecting the liberty of the individual that had never been tried before.
An argument could be made that it was the Constitution- or better yet, the ideals spelled out in the Declaration of Independence- that made America what it was. Not perfect, but a good start.
A great many people feel, for one reason or another, that they owe an obligation of obedience, or even loyalty, to the government authority in America. What they miss is the fact that this "authority" is not embodied in any person or group of people. Not the president, the congress, or any employee or agent of the government. If there is any authority called "The United States of America" that you should respect, it is only in the Constitution.
Any government employee, from the president to the congress or the Supreme Court, is a legitimate government authority only as long as he strictly obeys the law that sets out his job parameters. When he fudges that obedience he is no longer a legitimate authority and you owe him nothing.
That means if he works for the government and supports any gun "law", no matter how "reasonable", he loses all authority. That means if he rules that the Patriot Act is "legal" (in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution) he is no longer an authority. It means if he signs a health care bill, or a wealth redistribution plan, or keeps supporting any department or agency not specifically authorized, by name and function, in the Constitution, he has lost his claim to be an authority of the government. He is not "America".
This realization may disturb some people, but it may allow others to finally defeat the cognitive dissonance caused by feeling they are supposed to respect the government authority, while knowing that what government employees and agents do is wrong. They have been misinterpreting just what the authority is all along and throwing their support or obedience behind the false authority.
Getting this right is the first step in fixing America.
.
Emotionalism part 1- "Super-Hate"
Emotionalism. We are all susceptible. But too often this is the excuse for initiating force, or even (shudder) calling for government to stick it to ... whoever we are emotional over. Or, it can be expressed by defending- against all reason- someone who is a real bad guy, but whom we "like" for one reason or another (this I'll discuss in Part 2).
I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders".
Most of the time, but not always, this emotionalism is due to people being "too close" to the issue. Maybe a "sex offender" abused them, or scared them, or they are worried about that sort of thing potentially happening more than most people are. Unless you or someone you know has been violently violated in a sexual way, I think this "super-hate" gives sex a magical mystical quality that it doesn't really have, probably due to a certain degree of anti-sexualism or "Victorian" attitudes. Perhaps in some people's lives it does have this power, and it lacks this power in other people's lives. One size does not fit all.
Many times over the years I have watched as libertarian friends went ballistic in unlibertarian-seeming ways in their hatred of "sex offenders" who never actually initiated any force, but who lived up to the "offender" part of the label by offending someone (such as "the public").
I don't know of any other accusation where the accusation alone is sufficient to create this hatred. Not only that, but anyone who suggests that the alleged actions may not have actually happened, or may not be wrong in and of themselves gets covered by the "super-hate" along with the accused. With accusations of theft or murder, anyone recognizing that the accused may not be guilty doesn't get treated this way, and neither does the accused in most cases.
It didn't matter that I basically agreed that their conjectured or real scenarios weren't good- I apparently didn't go far enough in my hatred, and I dared see the other side- and see that accusations do not equal guilt, and that if no force was initiated, the Zero Aggression Principle wasn't violated. And, I admit I often played it up longer than necessary to see where it would go and see whether the root of the hatred would come up. It usually eventually did.
One big part of the problem is that making exceptions for government intrusion or personal initiation of force is that once you let that camel get his nose under the tent, you can't stop it from lifting his head and removing your protection completely. You only deserve the liberty you respect in others- even those you despise.
Once you stop reasoning with regards to someone, your enemies can move you just a bit further toward their position. They make it OK to hate someone for their own purposes. "Liberty doesn't deal with this issue- let us take care of it for you." Or, the non-governmental way to say this is "Well, this really offends me, so I'll say this is an initiation of force, or a credible imminent threat to initiate force, and I'll use 'defensive' force against this person. It's OK. Really."
In either case, there is a danger of "mission creep". Actually, let me re-phrase that- there is probably a guarantee of "mission creep". More things will either "need" government "help" or will be called "aggression", so the justifications will get easier. It's not just a slippery slope; it's one you willingly ran toward and jumped down. And, bit by bit, your liberty is destroyed.
.
I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders".
Most of the time, but not always, this emotionalism is due to people being "too close" to the issue. Maybe a "sex offender" abused them, or scared them, or they are worried about that sort of thing potentially happening more than most people are. Unless you or someone you know has been violently violated in a sexual way, I think this "super-hate" gives sex a magical mystical quality that it doesn't really have, probably due to a certain degree of anti-sexualism or "Victorian" attitudes. Perhaps in some people's lives it does have this power, and it lacks this power in other people's lives. One size does not fit all.
Many times over the years I have watched as libertarian friends went ballistic in unlibertarian-seeming ways in their hatred of "sex offenders" who never actually initiated any force, but who lived up to the "offender" part of the label by offending someone (such as "the public").
I don't know of any other accusation where the accusation alone is sufficient to create this hatred. Not only that, but anyone who suggests that the alleged actions may not have actually happened, or may not be wrong in and of themselves gets covered by the "super-hate" along with the accused. With accusations of theft or murder, anyone recognizing that the accused may not be guilty doesn't get treated this way, and neither does the accused in most cases.
It didn't matter that I basically agreed that their conjectured or real scenarios weren't good- I apparently didn't go far enough in my hatred, and I dared see the other side- and see that accusations do not equal guilt, and that if no force was initiated, the Zero Aggression Principle wasn't violated. And, I admit I often played it up longer than necessary to see where it would go and see whether the root of the hatred would come up. It usually eventually did.
One big part of the problem is that making exceptions for government intrusion or personal initiation of force is that once you let that camel get his nose under the tent, you can't stop it from lifting his head and removing your protection completely. You only deserve the liberty you respect in others- even those you despise.
Once you stop reasoning with regards to someone, your enemies can move you just a bit further toward their position. They make it OK to hate someone for their own purposes. "Liberty doesn't deal with this issue- let us take care of it for you." Or, the non-governmental way to say this is "Well, this really offends me, so I'll say this is an initiation of force, or a credible imminent threat to initiate force, and I'll use 'defensive' force against this person. It's OK. Really."
In either case, there is a danger of "mission creep". Actually, let me re-phrase that- there is probably a guarantee of "mission creep". More things will either "need" government "help" or will be called "aggression", so the justifications will get easier. It's not just a slippery slope; it's one you willingly ran toward and jumped down. And, bit by bit, your liberty is destroyed.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)