Refusal is a weapon. It is a weapon that has been used to good effect in this country since the time of the Founders. Michael Bloomberg’s Rules are negated by the Law of Unintended Consequences. And looking back on the past two years of expensive laws and craven legislators bought and sold that all of his “victories” required, Bloomberg must be wondering this Christmas why it is that someone crapped in his stocking. He should be celebrating. Instead he has been frustrated, as the Founders intended, by the refusal of the armed citizenry of the United States to bow down to him and his tyrannical kind.
Mike Vanderboegh
December 23, 2014
Refusal as a weapon. There is NO unconstitutional law that Mike Bloomberg can buy that we cannot nullify with armed civil disobedience.
[Refusal worked for Rosa Parks. Refusal worked for Canadian gun owners. If we play our cards right refusal will work for us.
And a very Merry Christmas to Bloomberg and his ilk.—Joe]
UNintended consequences? That’s what people often say when discussing the bad outcome of most “progressive” projects. After all this experience, I would say “intended consequences” is more accurate. They may be marketed as unintended, but the unstated reality is different.
I think it’s important not to underestimate the enemy, but, they DO make mistakes.
When a bully does something to irritate you, there are typically only two possible responses. Comply or rebel, or react out of fear or anger, respectively. In either case the bully is now dominating you.
There is a third possible response however, and where the bully screws up is in failing to understand or anticipate it. He’s become accustomed to always dominating, because most people are weak. Most people will either react in fear or anger and either way it doesn’t matter to the bully because either way he’s in control. What the bully doesn’t count on, what he usually cannot even understand, what he thinks he’s proven to himself doesn’t even exist, is the principled opposition.
The bully does not anticipate the principled opposition, nor does he comprehend how powerful it is or how quickly it can sweep him off his feet. If he thinks of it at all, he’s come to think of it as a farce. He spent his whole life making farces out of people, it’s always worked for him and that’s given him his arrogance.
But if he comes up against the real thing he’s doomed.
Yes, they do make mistakes, and unintended consequences are possible. But it doesn’t make sense to assume that all bad things that they bring about are unintended — that amounts to believing all their actions are mistaken, which surely is not the case.
More to the point, when a “progressive” action hurts freedom, it is a good bet to assume it was an intended outcome. I would apply “unintended consequence” only to progressive actions that help freedom.
Sorry, but Rosa Parks was a fake setup job by the naacp………
I’m not sure what you mean by “fake setup job”. Yes, the NAACP did orchestrate the refusal to sit in the back of the bus. But it was still a refusal which was successful in achieving a just goal. We should learn from and adapt to our needs any successes we can find in history.