After reading those comments, I've come to the realization that I should get into Strawman Insurance. Those guys need it something fierce.
I'm wondering what the look on their face would be if there were to meet me and realize that I'm not missing teeth, overweight, and sporting a NASCAR hat.
The most disappointing thing is that he didn't take any quotes from Mike Vandenbough(sp?). I would have loved to see his eloquence displayed in the NYTimes.
Reading the comments section is mind-numbing. There are so many lemmings who don't understand the concept of the Gadsden Flag, that is if they would just leave gun owners alone, they wouldn't have a reason to strike. It's pretty simple symbolism.
I do want to comment on one post I see that reflects a confliction of ideas: "The immediate post-9/11 period brought these creeps out of the woodwork, en mass. Time to push back; take back the cool, good, safe America. NOW"
This person says in finishing that he wants America to be both "Good" and "Safe." In reality it can be one or the other, not both. Safe means it cannot wield power or force, while Good means that it uses power or force for good. I will quote CS Lewis in regards to Aslan; "No he isn't safe, but he's Good."
Also, "There is a reason many of these people live outside of cities and have not contributed to our greater society in any positive way." Apparently, not living in a city means you don't contribute to anything positive...it boggles the mind.
As Orwell predicted, the first step to demonizing thoughts or behavior is to set the terms of the argument. Here, they define "America" as the European-style socialist democracy that they crave, and then ask "why do these [people who love America] hate [what I wish America was] so much?"
I don't hate America. Of course I know the difference between "America" and "The USA".
But, then I am not "conservative" either. I am not any type of authoritarian statist. I just happen to acknowledge that every human has an absolute non-negotiable right to own and to carry any weapon he (or she) sees fit, everywhere they go, in whatever manner they prefer, without asking permission from any governmental or bureaucratic parasite ever.
This is the MO of Marxist, allow me to walk you through this one in just a few steps. Whenever there is a important election between the two parties. The left and their propaganda dailies say the republican is stupid and that the democrat is a real brain, brilliant. This is always the case. Now one knows a woman should never be judged for the kind of person she is because of her looks. Keep in mind the Right would never put down the Clinton's kind, Albright, Reno and the rest. Yet during Slick Willie's zipper problems the left called Paula Jones trailer trash, show the very worst photos they could get their hands of Linda Tripp, called Monica a stalker and gold digger for a few. Marxist which are liberals and by far and large democrats always do personal attacks and slander as the tool of choice.
I just happen to acknowledge that every human has an absolute non-negotiable right to own and to carry any weapon he (or she) sees fit, everywhere they go, in whatever manner they prefer, without asking permission from any governmental or bureaucratic parasite ever.
Not entirely true Kent, Even an Anarcho-Capitalist would tell you that when you're on someone else's property you have to play by their rules.
Just because I have a right to myself doesn't mean that I get to run around in your front yard nekid.
Chef, As an Anarcho-capitalist, I have to call bullsh*t.
i am sick and tired of that competing RIghts horsepucky. Your property rights end at the soles of my shoes. Just like your property rights end at the interface between my tires and your land. ALL that you can do is request that I leave your proerty. You can not tell me what to do, what to wear, what to believe, etc... You see, I own ME, you don't EVER own ME.
I honestly wonder if this is an education or intelligence issue. This is not meant as an attack, I am seriously curious.
Anybody notice that anarcho-capitalism can only survive in a Republic? I like how in comments on the article some referred to "us" as mentally ill. It's that old commie standby, if they resist, put 'em in the nuthouse. The other side of this crackup is that they have no plan, no effective ideas, on how to deal with us. The sky is falling, and all they know to do is run around the barnyard and shriek that it is. But I would turn around their basic assumption, and ask THEM, Why DO you hate America so much?
Of course, Chef, I assume that everyone is armed. Why would they NOT take the responsibility to provide for their own defense?
I invite people to visit me, it isn't my job to keep them safe. If I invite you, I will assume you are armed. If I want to make the absurd assumption that you will want to be my dependant child while you are at my house, I suppose I could make that a condition of my invitation, but I would NEVER accept an invitation with such a horrible caveat.
If I invite you to my house, and I know you tend to run around naked, I can either accept that about you, state my condition that you not do it, or not invite you. I will always assume liberty. Let the control freaks, who have the aberrant ideas, state them up front.
Also, as I have stated before, what is inside my clothing, and stays there, is no one else's business whatsoever.
Actually, anarcho-capitalism can survive anywhere, since it is an individual thing. A republic is just as hostile to it as a communist regime is, but must hide its hatred of it in order to appear more reasonable.
You're dodging Kent. Name one country that is anarcho-capitalist. It's a sort of ok idea, as long as there is the technology of the 17th century. Things move too fast, and there are too many hard-wired technologies to remain private, prosperous, and independant. We can't all live in the South-West, living on next to nothing. I have no objections to you doing so, and sooner or later, we're all going to see the critter, and it's going to be well armed and ORGANIZED. That lone wolf stuff is going to get a lot of people killed, one at a time.
"Countries" can't be "anarcho-capitalistic" just like "science" can't be "religious"; or "slavery" can't be "liberating". They are opposites that do not overlap.
"Anarcho-capitalist" individuals can exist in a country, but as soon as they start trying to turn the government their direction (and the government is what it seems you are talking about) they have betrayed anarcho-capitalism for some form of socialism, however mild.
Anarchism isn't "lone wolf". It recognizes the need for people to voluntarily join together for their mutual benefit. It just realizes that if you force someone to "join" you, you are deluding yourself and violating their right to be free from coercion. Such people will never really be on your side, no matter what you make them pretend to be.
All in all, government is the "17th century artifact" whose time has run out. We are living through the death throes now. The more effort we put into keeping the monster alive, the more damage it will do. Ignore that fact at your peril.
After reading those comments, I've come to the realization that I should get into Strawman Insurance. Those guys need it something fierce.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering what the look on their face would be if there were to meet me and realize that I'm not missing teeth, overweight, and sporting a NASCAR hat.
The comments reinforce the "two peoples, same land" concept I've read on Vanderboegh's blog.
ReplyDeleteThe most disappointing thing is that he didn't take any quotes from Mike Vandenbough(sp?). I would have loved to see his eloquence displayed in the NYTimes.
ReplyDeleteReading the comments section is mind-numbing. There are so many lemmings who don't understand the concept of the Gadsden Flag, that is if they would just leave gun owners alone, they wouldn't have a reason to strike. It's pretty simple symbolism.
I do want to comment on one post I see that reflects a confliction of ideas:
"The immediate post-9/11 period brought these creeps out of the woodwork, en mass. Time to push back; take back the cool, good, safe America. NOW"
This person says in finishing that he wants America to be both "Good" and "Safe." In reality it can be one or the other, not both. Safe means it cannot wield power or force, while Good means that it uses power or force for good. I will quote CS Lewis in regards to Aslan; "No he isn't safe, but he's Good."
Also, "There is a reason many of these people live outside of cities and have not contributed to our greater society in any positive way." Apparently, not living in a city means you don't contribute to anything positive...it boggles the mind.
As Orwell predicted, the first step to demonizing thoughts or behavior is to set the terms of the argument. Here, they define "America" as the European-style socialist democracy that they crave, and then ask "why do these [people who love America] hate [what I wish America was] so much?"
ReplyDelete"May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" -Samuel Adams
ReplyDeleteI think this sums up what I feel about people like Mr Blows.
I don't hate America. Of course I know the difference between "America" and "The USA".
ReplyDeleteBut, then I am not "conservative" either. I am not any type of authoritarian statist. I just happen to acknowledge that every human has an absolute non-negotiable right to own and to carry any weapon he (or she) sees fit, everywhere they go, in whatever manner they prefer, without asking permission from any governmental or bureaucratic parasite ever.
This is the MO of Marxist, allow me to walk you through this one in just a few steps.
ReplyDeleteWhenever there is a important election between the two parties. The left and their propaganda dailies say the republican is stupid and that the democrat is a real brain, brilliant. This is always the case.
Now one knows a woman should never be judged for the kind of person she is because of her looks. Keep in mind the Right would never put down the Clinton's kind, Albright, Reno and the rest. Yet during Slick Willie's zipper problems the left called Paula Jones trailer trash, show the very worst photos they could get their hands of Linda Tripp, called Monica a stalker and gold digger for a few.
Marxist which are liberals and by far and large democrats always do personal attacks and slander as the tool of choice.
I just happen to acknowledge that every human has an absolute non-negotiable right to own and to carry any weapon he (or she) sees fit, everywhere they go, in whatever manner they prefer, without asking permission from any governmental or bureaucratic parasite ever.
ReplyDeleteNot entirely true Kent, Even an Anarcho-Capitalist would tell you that when you're on someone else's property you have to play by their rules.
Just because I have a right to myself doesn't mean that I get to run around in your front yard nekid.
Chef,
ReplyDeleteAs an Anarcho-capitalist, I have to call bullsh*t.
i am sick and tired of that competing RIghts horsepucky. Your property rights end at the soles of my shoes. Just like your property rights end at the interface between my tires and your land. ALL that you can do is request that I leave your proerty. You can not tell me what to do, what to wear, what to believe, etc... You see, I own ME, you don't EVER own ME.
I honestly wonder if this is an education or intelligence issue. This is not meant as an attack, I am seriously curious.
Anybody notice that anarcho-capitalism can only survive in a Republic? I like how in comments on the article some referred to "us" as mentally ill. It's that old commie standby, if they resist, put 'em in the nuthouse. The other side of this crackup is that they have no plan, no effective ideas, on how to deal with us. The sky is falling, and all they know to do is run around the barnyard and shriek that it is. But I would turn around their basic assumption, and ask THEM, Why DO you hate America so much?
ReplyDeleteOf course, Chef, I assume that everyone is armed. Why would they NOT take the responsibility to provide for their own defense?
ReplyDeleteI invite people to visit me, it isn't my job to keep them safe. If I invite you, I will assume you are armed. If I want to make the absurd assumption that you will want to be my dependant child while you are at my house, I suppose I could make that a condition of my invitation, but I would NEVER accept an invitation with such a horrible caveat.
If I invite you to my house, and I know you tend to run around naked, I can either accept that about you, state my condition that you not do it, or not invite you. I will always assume liberty. Let the control freaks, who have the aberrant ideas, state them up front.
Also, as I have stated before, what is inside my clothing, and stays there, is no one else's business whatsoever.
Actually, anarcho-capitalism can survive anywhere, since it is an individual thing. A republic is just as hostile to it as a communist regime is, but must hide its hatred of it in order to appear more reasonable.
You're dodging Kent. Name one country that is anarcho-capitalist. It's a sort of ok idea, as long as there is the technology of the 17th century. Things move too fast, and there are too many hard-wired technologies to remain private, prosperous, and independant. We can't all live in the South-West, living on next to nothing. I have no objections to you doing so, and sooner or later, we're all going to see the critter, and it's going to be well armed and ORGANIZED. That lone wolf stuff is going to get a lot of people killed, one at a time.
ReplyDelete"Countries" can't be "anarcho-capitalistic" just like "science" can't be "religious"; or "slavery" can't be "liberating". They are opposites that do not overlap.
ReplyDelete"Anarcho-capitalist" individuals can exist in a country, but as soon as they start trying to turn the government their direction (and the government is what it seems you are talking about) they have betrayed anarcho-capitalism for some form of socialism, however mild.
Anarchism isn't "lone wolf". It recognizes the need for people to voluntarily join together for their mutual benefit. It just realizes that if you force someone to "join" you, you are deluding yourself and violating their right to be free from coercion. Such people will never really be on your side, no matter what you make them pretend to be.
All in all, government is the "17th century artifact" whose time has run out. We are living through the death throes now. The more effort we put into keeping the monster alive, the more damage it will do. Ignore that fact at your peril.