Category Archives: Freedom

Quote of the day—George Will

Posted on by

I firmly believe the most important decision taken anywhere in the twentieth century was the decision taken as to where to locate the Princeton graduate college.

President of Princeton Woodrow Wilson wanted it located down on the campus. Other people wanted to located where it in fact is, up on the golf course away from the campus. When Wilson lost that, he had one of his characteristic tantrums, went into politics and ruined the twentieth century.

George Will
May 18, 2010
”2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner Keynote Address” featuring George F. Will
[Via Kevin. Please read the transcript at Kevin’s or listen to the podcast. This is a lot good stuff in there.

To understand this quote requires knowing more than a little about Woodrow Wilson’s “contribution” to the politics of this country. One might give Wilson a little bit of slack because of World War I. But it is probably better explained that WW I gave him the excuse to implement his agenda rather than WWI required the implementation of an oppressive government.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

Posted on by

That was the best thing about turning 16 years old. I could drive a car by myself and buy dynamite without my parents knowing about it.

Ry Jones
November 6, 2010
[A bunch of us were talking about how things used to be back when our country was a little freer. The quote above was one of Ry’s contribution to the conversation. This was said while making explosives to blow up some pumpkins.—Joe]

Philosophy questions

Posted on by

I moved some pages I had on a different web site to this blog for better visibility and archival. These posts were from 1997 and 1998 which was long before my first blog post (February 3, 2004) and I have given the posts their approximate original date.

 

The pages moved are:

 

 

 

If you want to comment on one or more of those posts you will have to do it on this post as the comments are disable for posts that old.

Quote of the day—George Savile

Posted on by

When the People contend for their liberty, they seldom get anything for their Victory but new Masters.

George Savile
[This seems to be particularly true when the contention is via the ballot box.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Laurel

Posted on by

We have the belief that, through voting, our voice is being heard. How is my voice being heard if the ideas I cherish are defeated, and those I abhor prevail? How have I accomplished anything other than giving my consent to being ruled, potentially by someone my ideological opposite?

Well, I do not consent, and that is my vote.

Laurel
November 2, 2010
Check your premises.
[There is more than a little bit of truth to this but at the current time I’m not seeing “I do not consent” making a big impact or even the potential of a big impact. What are you going to do instead? Vote from the roof top on the day after? The last I heard that hasn’t started yet. Until it does voting seems to me to be the better alternative. And even if you do start applying “Second Amendment remedies” I don’t see voting with paper yesterday being a blocking issue for voting with copper jacketed lead today.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Maio

Posted on by

Sounds like it’s time to put ’em up against the wall. Without the right to vote, there’s nothing left but direct force.

Michael Maio
Sunday 11/22/98 9:37 PM
SOC Libertarian Discussion
Microsoft Public Folder
In response to a report that the Federal Government concealed the results of an election to make marijuana legal for medical uses.
[I was reminded of this by what Alan said.

It’s something to keep in mind on this election day.—Joe]

Quote of the day—H.L. Mencken

Posted on by

Most people want security in this world, not liberty.

H.L. Mencken
Minority Report, 1956
[Also note that security comes in two flavors. You can feel secure and you can actually be secure. Liberty has a strong tendency to make people feel less secure at the expense of true security. For example you can feel secure that the government will provide you with food and housing but your property will not be secure from government takings for redistribution. You can feel secure that the government will be able to find and extract a confession from criminals but the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures may be infringed or you may be compelled to testify against yourself or not have due process.

The vast majority of people have a strong preference for feeling secure. Hence there is a strong tendency to give up liberty for imagined safety and get neither.

I was reminded of this by this video (via Alan and Ry who also points out this relates to Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson) from Bruce Schneier:

Schneier points out that even when there is lots of data available, such as with cigarette smoking, it takes a long time to get people to change their behavior. It should come as no surprise it has taken us decades to make progress on the gun rights front.–Joe]

Guns versus ideas

Posted on by

The Washington Post has a very interesting article about the ATF and the tracing of guns. But I couldn’t help but think how the entire tone of the article would come across to most people if one were to substitute “book” for “gun” with the ATF becoming the ATB for Alcohol, Tobacco and Books.

The Washington Post just doesn’t get it. The possession of firearms is a specific enumerated right and the government should no more tracking down the tools used to commit a crime than tracking down where someone got the idea to commit a crime. The same goes for people who think a previous gun owner should have some responsibility for what happens to their gun after it leaves their possession. If people and corporations aren’t responsible for the ideas they communicate (except in certain extreme cases) then why should anyone be responsible for tools they used to own?

Neighbors

Posted on by

My son and a neighbor kid got into some trouble last Spring.  A minor property crime against the local grange– a stupid, boyish stunt.  That’s the first big mistake in this series.


John Law got involved and came down HARD on the two kids.  Really serious shit, as if they were career, hard-core gang leaders or something.  Second big mistake.  No one’s really responsible either– things go largely according to a pre-ordained plan in a largely manditory system.  I would have thought this could be settled better, more efficiently and with more focus on restitution and correction, by neighbors talking to neighbors, but John Law has to get his piece of the action or he feels all left out and stuff.  Instead, my first news of this came after the kids had been arrested.  Watching the excitement on Hawaii 5-O and hardly ever even getting to slap the cuffs on some kids in a small town can be a bitch I guess.  Maybe we’re all bitches now.  Some people seem to think so, or wish it were so.


Fast-forward several months.  My son’s “partner in crime” from last Spring was found dead this Saturday morning.  Someone spotted his body near a bridge a few blocks away and made an anonymous call (who does that?) to 911.  I still don’t know the cause of death and it would be irresponsible to speculate.  All we know right now is; it has been reported that foul play is not suspected.


While making a huge pot of soup from our garden vegetables, duck eggs and yearling elk heart (which is tender and wonderful– thank you, Chris) this weekend, I thought back to 1977 which is when my sister and niece were killed.  Some of our neighbors brought over prepared food for us, and it was very well received.  It’s so simple, yet it makes a lot of sense.  When you’re tragedy-struck, you probably have less, or no, appetite and you sure don’t want to fix meals or go shopping when you have all the aftermath to deal with, and the grief.  But you have to eat, so I thought of bringing the parents and surviving son some of the soup and some other things this last Sunday.


Then the doubt kicked in.  Third big mistake.  “I don’t even really know these people, and for all I know they might hate the very idea of elk heart (Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies offering ‘possum-n-grits, chicken fried skunk, or some such, comes to mind), they might be offended, or maybe they’d blame my son for what happened or something.  Maybe they don’t eat meat or these other things.”  All this stupid, inane garbage prevented me from going down there straight away.  The wife was out of town at a rehearsal, the kids need to stay on their homework—all the regular stuff adds up too.


An offer of help can always be refused, but at least you’re giving them the option and asking nothing, which is the whole point.  Isn’t it?  I’ve gone stupid and wobbly in my old age.  Yakkity yacking more and doing less, maybe.


A few days later I finally got around to going over there with some home-made sweet cider and some fresh duck eggs.  The grandmother answered the door, and I spoke to her and the mother.  They were extremely gracious, appreciative and talkative, almost fawning, but that’s not the point.  I’d decided in advance that if they slammed the door in my face I’d be OK with that.  They informed me that the kids’ father is now in the hospital in intensive care for, among other things, not eating. (sigh)


If you think someone might need a little gesture of help, and even if you think your offer is dumb, maybe you should just offer the damn help.  Git ‘er done.  But I’m not finished here;


A community social network of some kind can be a precious thing, and whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, or haven’t thought much about it, your local church organizations can and do offer that sort of network.  So long as they don’t go all hell-fire and brimstone on people, they are potentially a great value to society.  I’ve harshly questioned organized religion, and I think with good reason.  Some of them are downright evil, some have fallen in with the Tides Foundation or other global leftist organizations, but the argument isn’t all one-sided.


Time was when churches, the Rotary Club, Elks, Moose Lodge, Eagles, Granges and so on were THE centers of local community action.  Now it’s a coercive, increasingly centralized government in concert with what can only be described as communist agitators and punks (such that now even the very term “community action” connotes leftist agitation).  Which would you rather?

Quote of the day—Robert J. McCracken

Posted on by

We on this continent should never forget that men first crossed the Atlantic not to find soil for their ploughs but to secure liberty for their souls.


Robert J. McCracken
[This ignores the Vikings who probably were looking for plunder rather than liberty. The American Indians probably crossed the Bearing Strait instead of the Atlantic and my guess is they were looking for happy hunting grounds instead of liberty. But still he has a valid point.


We are mostly descendants of people who desired to be free from rulers in Europe. Sometimes they wanted to create new rules which stifled liberty such as the Puritans and the Mormons but there was plenty of space where they could pretty much leave each other alone. The First Amendment insists they leave each other alone and lubricates the interactions sufficiently that for the most part things move along fairly smoothly.


When newcomers or mutants come along and start creating new rulers in this new land it creates friction, resentment, and resistance at a subconscious level. It’s in our genes. This is particularly true in the west. Most of the people who moved to the western part of this continent in the 1800s were twice filtered for freedom. Once with the migration of their ancestors from Europe and then again with the migration across the plains and the Rockies.


Those in Washington D.C. who aspire to be our rulers should never forget our minds do not think the same as those who remained in Europe or even on the east coast. We are like a domestic animal bred and selected for a particular personality. They would be well advised to think of us as irritable sheep dogs rather than as sheep. We can feed and take care of ourselves if needed. And most importantly we have a vicious bite when treated like sheep to be shorn or butchered.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

Thank you, Erik Dilan, for calling it a “fine.” You’re making the inevitable multi-million dollar lawsuit against your city that much easier.

Sebastian
October 26, 2010
Bloomberg Looking to Avoid a Lawsuit
[A New York City Councilman says that you need to pay a fine to own a firearm. That is just so awesome! It is like (H/T to Rob B. who sent me an email)  when the gun store opened in Sunnyvale California and the nearby residents said things like, ““I feel as if having [a gun store] in close proximity to many schools is a danger.”

These people just don’t get it. What if you had to pay a fine to be a practicing Jew, Muslim, or Christian? What if the neighbors wanted zoning to keep Jewish Delis and the residences of homosexuals more than one mile from all schools? Feelings are only loosely correlated with reality.

To put these people in their place it’s going to take the same sort of slap down by the courts that it took to put people in their place who said things like, “God damn, God damn, what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can’t even arrest them!”—Joe]

Quote of the day–Harry Emerson Fosdick

Posted on by

Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.

Harry Emerson Fosdick
[I don’t think most people understand this. They see the little hazards of liberty and freedom like accidental gun shoot wounds and the occasional mass shootings and overlook the genocide enabled by prohibitions against the private ownership of firearms.—Joe]

Gaining traction

Posted on by

Via Say Uncle and Greg.

“Bigots” is used in the MSM to describe those opposed to guns in public:

Despite Florida’s reputation as a gun-crazy state, we actually are like some socialist European country when it comes to bearing our arms. We make people get permits and hide their heat under jackets and coats, lest they offend the sissy gun bigots.

It’s pretty amazing to think how much has changed in the last 10 years. And don’t forget it could have changed that much or more in the other direction. Think of the change in recreational drug use/tolerance from the early 70’s to the 80s’. Think of naked pictures of airplane passengers now versus 10 years ago. Think of Jews in Germany in 1930 versus 1940.

When people say something “could never happen here” tell them to read their history. Attitudes can change very, very fast.

We have gained a lot of traction on the gun rights agenda in the last 10 years. We need to keep the “pedal to the metal” and push the bigots as close to political extermination as we can.

Quote of the day—Kevin Baker

Posted on by

I, for one, do not welcome our Neocortical Overlords.

Kevin Baker
October 21, 2010
Our Neocortical Overlords
[Make that two. I’ve worked on too many government projects with people that said things like “See this badge? This means the law doesn’t apply to us” or seen the results of spending billions on some of the most stupid and wasteful things.

Oh! It’s least four (via both Alan and Kevin):

And when you people with obvious mental defects (such as Peterson Syndrome or other problems) an inability to read and comprehend, or an inability to determine truth from falsity insisting they should be making the rules then we have an even bigger problem of people with the mental capabilities of a two year old “thinking” they are our superiors. That should convince even the most skeptical this is a real problem and must not be allowed to continue or ever happen again.–Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

There has been some very good postings about “need” recently. Perhaps a good comeback for the Marxist with the mindset of “to everyone according to their needs” can be expressed a little more succulently.


In this country the people don’t have to justify their needs to the government. The government has to justify their needs to the people.

Huh?

Posted on by

This just doesn’t make sense to me. But I guess that is to be expected when you are dealing with journalists and anti-gun people:

Wendy Cukier teaches at a business school, so she understands economic imperatives – and the importance of innovation and prosperity. But for the associate dean of Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management, what matters most is preserving core Canadian values around safety, equity and respect for human rights.

This is so full of fail it is mindboggling.

The right to defend oneself is the most basic human right in existence yet she works to restrict it at every opportunity. This endangers and imbalances things. It doesn’t preserve safety and equity.

She understands economic imperatives? Yeah, right. Read the rest of the article. She is all about liberal causes.

An expert in emerging technologies, Prof. Cukier has spent two decades championing workplace diversity and gun control. The unifying themes of her work are innovation and change processes, says the co-author of 2002’s Innovation Nation: Canadian Leadership From Java to Jurassic Park. After spending her early career with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Prof. Cukier became a consultant to organizations such as the Palo Alto, California–based Institute for the Future.

It seems to me it is quite a stretch to connect “emerging technologies” with “championing workplace diversity and gun control”. I wonder if that was Cukier or the writer that came up with that.

Also note:

The Transformational Canadians program celebrates 25 living citizens who have made a difference by immeasurably improving the lives of others. Readers were invited to nominate Canadians who fit this description. Over several weeks, a panel of six judges will select 25 Transformational Canadians from among the nominees.

Nominations remain open until November 26. Submit yours today.

I think some balance to the anti-rights representative needs to made. Know any pro-freedom Canadians that might qualify?

Quote of the day—Charlie

Posted on by

Having lived for many decades in deeply liberal enclaves and having had many long-term friendly and working relationships with progressive types, I puzzled about the mental diff myself.


What I came up with is that your basic libertarian conservative is an optimist who doesn’t doubt for a second that, left to our own devices, things slowly but surely tend to get better. Your social conservative feels much the same *provided* we are on guard against moral trespass–you can’t get on the right track if you’re living on the wrong track.


Your progressive, otoh, is a pessimist who firmly believes that, left to our own devices, we will surely go astray in mass through greed, ignorance, prejudice and other low motivations. Hence, we need parental-type authority over us. Love of material things, particularly in categories like guns and cars, stands as proof of intent to drag all of society into your own mental hell.


If you point out the march of progress over recent centuries to them, to the extent they reply at all (as opposed to just blowing you off as some idiot), it is to state that that’s all delusion, a bubble that will burst leaving us in worse shape than if we had not pursued the folly of econo-technical progress at the expense of getting our heads right. Almost anything you say to them not from the choir book is mere confirmation that you are hopelessly delusional.


Curiously, most people who come right out and say they are socialists, you can have a debate with. They just think you’re the enemy, a swine, deluded but not delusional.


Charlie
October 17, 2010
Comment to Same Planet different worlds.
[I really like this. I like the way it succulently expresses the philosophical viewpoint of the various camps. Of course it’s possible to construct some gray area between the various camps. For example it’s possible to say the government should stay out of the lives of people but if people want to use public roads it might be okay for government require proof of driving skill.


But the main conclusion which can be drawn from this is that the progressive/pessimist leads themselves into a logical trap. If they are correct that people will “go astray” and need parental-type authority over them then the same argument can used against government. Hence you end up requiring an infinite chain of parental-type authorities. Just like requiring the universe to have a creator—who created the creator? It’s not turtles all the way down and the government can’t be fathers all the way up.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chancellor Angela Merkel

Posted on by

Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other’. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly.


Chancellor Angela Merkel
October 17, 2010
Angela Merkel declares death of German multiculturalism
[The same could be said of our tolerance of the liberal/progressive/socialist culture.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert K. Corbin

Posted on by

The gun debate isn’t just about waiting periods, semi-automatic bans, licensing, registration, handgun bans or the Second Amendment; it’s about liberty, and the fundamental beliefs that make democracy possible.

Robert K. Corbin
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 116.

Quote of the day—Say Uncle

Posted on by

There simply cannot be peace between our people and it’s entirely because of different mentalities, world views and ways of thinking.

Say Uncle
Same planet, different worlds
October 15, 2010
[As I said in the comments to his post:

In another time these people would have been reading entrails or doing trials by fire to make decisions. Some people actually believe evidence and reason are counter productive to good decision making. They are NOT stupid. Some of them sit on the SCOTUS and you don’t get there riding on the short bus.

As further evidence look at Joan Peterson “rest her case” defending against people informing her that she is ignorant and a bigot. This is why Peterson Syndrome was named after her. She simply does not know how to determine truth from falsity. She makes “reasoning noises” (thanks to MJM for that phrase) but she totally lacks the mental processes to follow a path to defendable conclusions.

Frequently the biggest obstacle to problem solving is in understanding and defining the problem. I think I have now done that. But now that we know the problem I think we still have a huge obstacle. I don’t know how, or if, these mental defects can be cured or prevented. But I do know that if we don’t find a solution soon Darwin is currently implementing a solution which is extremely painful for everyone.—Joe]