I get it that many people really like politics. Some feel the need to participate, rather than just observe. Some of these believe they are being self-defensively political. But is that really a thing? Isn't that like setting off a bomb in a crowded store and saying it was in self-defense?
I get protesting against some anti-liberty scheme. But is v*ting ever really a purely defensive protest?
How can you "be political" without violating the life, liberty, or property of anyone else in any way-- without archating?
You don't automatically owe others housing, medical care, safety, or food. Not without a prior, mutually consensual, agreement.
Recently, I've seen more and more claims saying "we" also owe each other respect.
There is only one kind of respect you owe others, and it is very specific.
You are obligated-- you owe it-- to respect the natural, equal, and identical human rights of every individual. Not a generalized "respect". You can't owe something that hasn't been earned by a consensual agreement or by a debt your actions created.
You owe it to others to not violate their life, liberty, or property-- including by trying to prevent them from securing those things for themselves. Your primary responsibility is, always has been and always will be, to not archate-- this is how you show the respect you actually owe to others. You owe it to them to not stand in their way of providing housing, medical care, safety, food, or respect for themselves.
But respect for their opinions? Nope.
Respect based on the color of their skin, their sex, their sexual proclivities, their culture, or their political/religious beliefs? Nope, again.
You owe others respect for their human right to be who they are, as long as they don't seek to use government violence to impose themselves and their opinions on you.
The quickest way to show yourself unworthy of even that level of respect is to try to force others to give you "respect"-- or else the State will use violence against them on your behalf.
Don't be guilted into taking on a debt that isn't yours. You owe what you owe, and not a bit more.
We'll claim we have recently discovered (through revelation) that we have the right to tell others how they are allowed to live, and the right to take a cut of their property so we can afford to keep telling them how they are allowed to live. And we have the right to beat up, rob, cage, or kill anyone who resists our help. But it's to keep them safe and snug from other dangers out there, so it's better than the alternative.
If anyone objects, we can say "Yoda said we have to do this or you'll live wrong because you are evil and stupid, and we aren't because He guides us with his infinite wisdom".
Or, we can just write a document saying we are going to do this, claim that everyone says it's OK if we do, and point to it as proof that we have a right to do this.
If anyone knows what rights are and points out that we can't have such a right, we'll just make up some magical quality with a new name-- I propose "powerness" -- that would lead to the same result. "You are obligated to comply with my document-sanctioned (and society-approved) requests or I have the powerness to rob, cage, or kill you!" See how that would work?
Yeah, it might be hard to talk people into going along with this crazy new idea. People aren't just going to roll over and give up their lives to a gang that says they have to.
Maybe that's why no one has thought of doing anything like this before.
Are they really this clueless and ignorant of history.
Yes. Yes, they are.
Violating liberty never saves lives in the long run. Not ever. It always ends up costing lives-- more lives than are lost by respecting liberty completely. Liberty is messy-- but violating liberty is evil.
To violate liberty for "safety", saying it is because you want to save lives, is one of the dumbest public positions you can take. This is what anti-gun bigots are doing with their calls for "gun control" and "common-sense gun reform" or whatever new anti-gun owner scheme they are pushing.
It's never going to increase safety-- except in the short term, for bad guys like thieves, politicians, rapists, kidnappers, and murderers. Why make them safer? Why sacrifice innocent people for the sake of the bad guys? Makes no sense to me. But, then, I'm not political.
They are automatically guilty just by joining such a gang, even before they use this gang membership as justification to violate life, liberty, or property-- which happens as soon as they get their first paycheck, if not before that when issued theft-funded equipment that the population fleeced to support them isn't "allowed" to own and carry and use in the way they are.
Yes, that's a very unpopular truth that those who imagine cops to be "necessary" or even the good guys don't want to hear. And they'll shriek about it, doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to counter it.
It's still the truth.
Because I see it as liberty's canary in the coal mine. It's one of the first things evil control freaks want to control, and it's one of the easiest things to brainwash non-aware people into going along with... "for safety".
If gun ownership weren't singled out so often by evil people I wouldn't single it out either. I don't think it is inherently more important than any other natural human right, but other natural human rights aren't as often targeted for destruction. That makes gun rights special.
They'll frequently excuse a murder-by-cop by saying "Well, the guy had (or the cop imagined he had) a gun!"
That's no justification for murdering someone... unless cops would like all of us to adopt the same standard with regard to them. "I had to shoot the cop. I saw he had a gun and I feared for my life!" If it wouldn't work for you or me, it doesn't work for them.
If you're a cop and you believe that seeing a gun justifies shooting the person, you need to be locked in a padded room without access to any sharp objects. You are unfit to live among the rest of us.
On one hand, I have zero respect for members of the Blue Line Gang. I want them held totally accountable for everything they do, and I am not deluded into imagining that a badge grants "extra rights".
On the other hand, I don't like the prosecution winning, ever. It always feels like a win for the state. My automatic bias is to declare "not guilty" in every case so as to not reward the state.
In other words, I would be completely hostile to both sides. That's about as balanced as anyone could be.
How scary is an unwanted encounter with an armed, aggressive gang member who you realize can kill you and most likely get away with it? Knowing that even if you survive, you're going to be poorer because he's allowed to rob you at gunpoint. Isn't that scary enough to make most people do unwise things?
If your criticism of people who get murdered by cops is that "They were acting stupid, or they wouldn't have been killed" I guess if a grizzly bear suddenly attacks you while you're minding your own business taking your trash out at night, you'll act the exact right way to defuse the situation so you can both survive.
If not, shut up. You're just being a stupid copsucker (but I repeat myself).
It started with a tweet and an unwise reply to that tweet by the guy exposed above.
I've written before how some people simply can't let go of Trump. Well, you're about to meet one of the faithful.
After he replied in a ridiculous way, I quote-tweeted his reply just because it was so incredibly dumb that it surprised me. I thought others should have the chance to enjoy it as much as I did.
I don't believe there's anything legitimate about any election, no matter who v*tes, where, or how many times. The last thing I'd want to do is make it easier for the mob to gang up on my liberty. Don't encourage that kind of bad behavior.
But... I see how the pro-ID people could use this development. If there is no ID requirement to v*te, why not embrace it? Why not take advantage of that for your side? What's stopping you? A superstitious belief that it's legitimate if done by the "rules"? It's not. And if the rules change, in spite of your warnings, you might as well go along to your advantage.
It seems that the people who want v*ter ID to be required could just decide to overwhelm the "system" with their... enthusiastic agreement to the terms... until the other side changes their minds.
