Sunday, June 01, 2014

Emotions drive away reason

Is there any issue that makes you get really emotional?

I'm sure there is- and that should be a warning to you. Emotional issues are difficult to think rationally about. Maybe even impossible.

Almost everyone has been hurt, emotionally, in some way.

I have had dear friends murdered by people using a gun as their tool of death. Should my emotions at losing my friends override my rational brain and cause me to advocate against gun ownership? That does seem to be the standard reaction.

I hate litter so much I can almost lose reason when I see it. Do I support "laws" against litter? No. If your litter ends up on my property, I may consider you a trespasser of sorts, but that is for me to deal with. Advocating for more "laws" will only litter my world worse.

Other people's emotional triggers can be things like rape, drunk driving, or protecting the helpless or damaged.

This seems to be one of the "buts" that trip up many people. Coercive government and its "laws" are wrong, "but I'll support the government's enforcement against [emotional issue] because I hate it!"

That plays right into the bad guys' hands.



  1. Kent, you're teaching what I need to learn, so I have to pry a little deeper. I agree about law pollution, but *some* laws I still think are necessary. Here are some examples of laws fixing things (they don't fix so much as prevent problems.) correct me as you see it, and hopefully there isn't much left to contradict itself in my mind. radio laws; keep radio, television, cellphones, and electricity functioning as intended. water use laws; set expectations and restrict abuses to ones you know about before settling. laws that restrict the possession of particular things like venomous animals where they might populate a city, or explosive chemicals when living in a proximity to neighbors. people corrupt these I know, but we're talking validity of law not human misuse.

    1. My response to "anonymous" is simply that no monopoly anywhere has ever given rise to efficient use of corrective energy to solve the "problems" outlined. Instead, monopoly state has caused the death and dismemberment of unbelievable numbers of "citizens" all over the earth throughout history. In fact "history" is largely a chronicle of the various wars that have resulted in "nations" coming about -- political entities whereby psychopathic "rulers" enact "laws" to supposedly resolve through "legislation" the problems you describe -- but which merely produce political privilege and advantage to those who have the means to cause politicians to be elected in the first place.

      You can't imagine a totally free marketplace. Neither can I. But I'll believe to my dying day that freedom is the only solution to what you've described. I can't tell you exactly how that will work out. And I can't guarantee there will no longer be conflict.

      But I can say with assurance the solutions of the free market will be better than this. Or this. Or this.


    2. youre as disgusted as I am with the abuses and manipulations of law, but you don't address my thoughts that some laws would be optimal. I agree in an anarchy or present government choice, I'd choose anarchy. I'd choose true liberty over any government I've ever witnessed. but, my point is; no government is still choosing a lesser of 2 evils scenario. I can't be sold on the notion of true liberty for all, until someone can factor out the survival of the fittest aspect. i'm very fit, and fall easily to temptation. but I know i'm not the biggest fish and the values would soon be outweighed by the costs. without someone to look over peoples shoulders, with their consent, we lack the cooperation needed to live more than 1 person to a planet.

    3. Anon- Sorry for the delayed response. I was out of town all day and within a couple of minutes of getting home last night a transformer blew. Interestingly, my computer and wireless router are not kerosene or wind-up powered.

      What exactly do you mean by "radio laws"? Do you mean the FCC making sure they approve of content, or their "assignment" of frequencies to keep them from encroaching on each other? The frequency issue had already been privately solved when the feds decided to step in and "fix" a problem that no longer existed. It wasn't in any station's interest to broadcast too close to another station's frequency. But it gave the feds an excuse to steal more power and "authority". And as for their censoring content- I really see no benefit to that. That's why there is an "off" switch" and a way to change stations. And, really, there is nothing they could broadcast that you can't hear at the park, or standing in line at the store.

      Power compaines also have a stake in keeping the electricity coming. People won't pay for what they don't receive- at least not without a gun to their heads. And the reality is that only those calling themselves "government" have much luck getting away with that tactic for very long. If the grid was unreliable, people would find alternatives (just as I did last night), and without government "laws" (government-granted monopolies, property codes, etc.) getting in the way, the alternatives would be much easier to implement.

    4. Around here, water is a big issue. But the government's use "laws" haven't solved the problem. They can't. The most they might have done is kicked that can a bit further down the road. And it's"funny" how government always seems to exempt itself from the "laws" it imposes on everyone else. The "laws" penalize people around here for having "unkempt" yards- but then the gov whines about the water usage. I would happily let my yard revert to native species which evolved to live in the dry conditions, but then I'd be in violation of the property codes. (I'm doing some of that anyway and we'll see what happens.) I have seen innovative roof designs which collect dew and drain it into cisterns- but it's not the most attractive set-up. How long before that resulted in a visit from the local "authorities". Look at the people being told they are not allowed to collect the rain runoff from their roof because that water belongs to "the state".

      If someone around here has venomous (or otherwise dangerous) animals, it is only an issue if the "law" forbids me defending myself from them. If my right to own and to carry arms is respected I am not really too worried that a particular dog (or tiger or cobra) might get loose and come after me. If I am expected to always be unarmed as I go about my daily life, the danger is more real.

      With explosives- if harm is caused, a debt is incurred. There are gas lines, and water heaters, and cars (and gas stations) with tanks full of a volatile liquid, and propane tanks all around me. Do I live in fear that without "laws" regulating these things I would be doomed? No.

      I don't see any of those "laws" as valid. The fewer "laws" around me, the less my right to defend myself and my property are violated. I think people have been lulled into a false sense of helplessness and a lack of personal responsibility by "laws" and law enforcers. I don't think that is good for individuals (and by extension, for society).

    5. There is an optimal amount of law- Natural Law. Don't initiate force, don't violate the private property of others, and do all you say you will do. Anything beyond that is no longer optimal- and those things have never needed to be written or enforced by "others".

      If you are "fit", do you see no value in extending protection to those around you? Do you not see how this could actually be to your advantage in the long run? Do you really avoid violating those around you because you believe someone is looking over your shoulder? Because, I'll tell you a secret- you could do a lot without being punished for it- especially if you become one of those who is allowed to look over people's shoulders. That's right- you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can be among the "fit", get paid (stolen funds) to bully people using the excuse that you are only looking over their shoulders to keep them from taking advantage of the weaker. And you can claim that you have their consent to do it. Well- I don't consent.

      I have no idea if I am "fit" or not. No one has told me their opinion on that matter. All I know is that when I try to do something I either succeed or I fail. Then I move on.

      I know that cooperation benefits me more than making everything into a fight. I know there are things too big for one person to do, and if I want to do them I'd better find a way to convince people to join me in the effort. And I have never needed to point a gun at their heads to get them to join me either. If you have to do that, perhaps you should wake up to thre fact that your goal isn't as wonderful as you claim.

  2. Back to the bottom line: monopoly. Psychopaths who make up that monopoly upon violence called "government" recognized early in the game that they must mandate government "education" ("public" ha ha schooling). That would be the first necessity to bring about a consistent belief in the legitimacy of government -- including a monopoly police "force" ("force" being a significant descriptor of what's actually going on with said monopoly upon violence). Children are pliable and will do as they're told (much of the time). If, each morning, a ritual called "pledge of allegiance" takes place, the kids will begin to look forward to that as part of their daily life. Normal and natural. None will question why a "pledge" of "allegiance" is necessary. It just

    It's strange, because I learned in government school that monopolies in the marketplace were evil -- "survival-of-the-fittest" would always "harm the-little-guy", and government regulation and oversight and enforcement would be necessary to prevent that. It wasn't until long after I grew up and was striving to feed a bunch of kids and a hungry wife that it dawned upon me that the group of psychopaths called "government" were the biggest threat to "the-little-guy" in existence -- that there could be no free market with the presence of government enforcers. And I came to see that monopolies cannot come into being without the help of those very enforcers I had grown up thinking were the protectors of ordinary folks .

    With government monopolization and mandatory attendance in their schools it is not difficult to convince little children that government wars are good and essential for "freedom". That is bizarre, because I just witnessed a political holiday that turns my stomach inside-out -- but that 90% or more of the people around me celebrate with great elation.

    When I turned 18 and graduated from high school in the early 50's I felt honored at the time to have been "selected" to "serve" in the U.S. Army. Your classic draftee. I was sent to a place called Korea. I had never heard of Korea until I was dropped into the rice paddies and confronted by a bevy of pretty women, bare of breast, most with babies tied to their backs. It was then I began to understand the hypocrisy of American sexism -- a totally different topic for a different thread and forum.

    The enormity of the truth is incredible.