Thursday, October 14, 2021

Going with the flow (of traffic)

There are things I do that some might mistake for "obeying government". Such as driving on the appropriate side of the road.

There are reasons to drive on the socially accepted side of the road. Legislation isn't necessary. I don't want to be in a head-on crash, and that's less likely as long as I go along with the social convention to drive on the same side as (almost) everyone else in this area. It is self-interest as well as being a way to avoid harming others

It's similar to the reason I don't archate. I have determined that my own life will be better if I drive on the right side of the road and if I don't violate life, liberty, or property. Who would need another reason?

I don't even believe legislation dictating the side of the road to drive on is legitimate. If you're self-destructive, how is it going to stop you? It's a pointless "law".

Along the same lines, if you're doing dumb or harmful things just because legislation says not to, you're being controlled by government.


If you appreciate what I do, consider showing it.


  1. Ah, the usual BS about laws and society. The problem is that those "self-destructive" people are also usually incompetent as well so they end up killing or maiming others while they survive.

    One of my neighborslost two friends (one dead, one in custodial care) due to a head-on with a repeat offender drunk who survived the crash. Had our state laws not been witten to protect drunken lawmakers and their drunken donors, the drunk in the accident would have been "quarantined" and peoples' lives would have been spared.

    The laws, in theory, provide obvious stardards and the authority for John Law to take action. "Quarantine" saves lives.

    "Self-Destructive" people are never content to "off" themselves in private. They want to drink, do drugs, and then go for a drive, thus putting others at risk.

    Your "Libertarian" argument is self centered gibberish that ignores the fact that there are other people in this world who do not share those "self-destructive" interests. If you are willing to put me at risk, I am perfectly happy to put you in "time out" in a concrete box for as long as it takes. That is what "laws" were for. In a crowded world, driving on the "correct" side of the road, and stopping for traffic signals, is a matter of life and death. If someone keeps putting me at risk of death because they "don wanna" or because they are too stupid to understand, then they deserve "the box" for my safety. The "law" just codifies that concern.

    Pull your head out and look around.

    1. Nice strawman you built there.

      Yes, self-destructive people exist. Yes, they often harm others. Legislation doesn't stop them. Prison doesn't stop them-- it might give them a time out.

      "Laws" don't work. They don't work. They don't work. Prison is a racket. Government is the opposite of society and its legislation is almost entirely antiLaw, except for some incidental alignment on rare occasions. If someone is too dangerous-- is a credible threat-- like cops/politicians and other archators are, including some people who drive on the wrong side of the road/impaired-- then it is self-defense to end the threat.

      Yes, it's a matter of life and death and THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT. You are why I think statists are self-centered jerks who can't live responsibly-- or at all-- without Mommy and Daddy State holding their hands and chasing away all the scaries. Time to grow up.

      I kindly thought better of most of what I wrote in response to your extremely ignorant comment and deleted it before posting. Commenting in anger never goes well. But you might take your own advice and put your head out and look around before posting your antisocial screeds.

    2. The "laws" set the conditions under which society can punish "bad behavior". I don't think that prison or "a law" will improve behavior but while the "bad actor" is in a box, he/she can't get to me. "Quarantine". A "law" just gives fair warning about the behavior that will not be tolerated. Most "rational" people don't need a "law" in order to get along. The "law" just gives notice of what action is not tolerated Some people will not or can not respect any boundaries or control their behavior. Hence, the "box", for a term or forever. Seems more efficient than an uncontrolable series of street gunfights since smaller or weaker individuals would have no other alternative in an unequal confrontation and with "bad actors" there would always be a confrontation.

      "Law" without enforcement is problematic, as we see in most large American cities. But that is another topic.

    3. Mike, are laws really written by "society"? - or rather by a bunch of psychopathic bullies who use their elected power to favor donors who ensure they get re-elected?

      Seems to me infinitely fairer to have none. "Bad behavior" will then be dealt with on the basis that A claims to have been damaged by B and asks a court to oblige B to compensate him. Instead of one-size-fitting-all, each case will then be decided on its merits. If there is no victim ("A") there's no case.

    4. A street gunfight is still better than a gang of legislation enforcers who break the Law almost every time they enforce legislation, and are funded by stolen money.

      Punishment is the opposite of justice. It is revenge. Real Law doesn't need enforcement, it just needs people to stand up to those who violate it-- whoever they might be.

      The belief that cops are good or necessary is just a really cowardly position. They are just criminals that YOU happen to like. And they do more to protect (other) bad guys from the rightful consequences of their actions than to protect you from bad guys.

      If police weren't already entrenched, no one would fall for the idea now. But cops were the foot in the door that led to all the rights violations we allow now, like the TSA, universal spying on Americans by the US government, and all the rest. Cops are worse than useless.

  2. If you don't step up and engage, please shut up.

    LtC Scheller risked jail and his pension to blow the whistle. The "vaccine mandate" is powered by corporate greed and the drive for power. I am encouraged by the number of people willing to risk pensions and livelihood to say, "Nah! Don wanna." It was always the risk that the government would be just another gang. Boss Tweed was no different than the "Gangs of New York". Virtually every empire or kingdom in Western history was destroyed by "gangs" who were more interested in stuffing their pockets than in looking out for the welfare of their nation. Then, like now, they weren't willing to accept a slice of prosperity. They wanted it all, NOW.

    Nothing new. So what are you going to do? It is the same opponent, the same enemy, just now they call it government. "Street gunfights" are concepts for the simple minded. What?

    1. Corporations and government are one and the same. Yes, they are a gang of thugs and control freaks. Politicians are never interested in the welfare of "their" nation, unless you define "nation" as the political system in which they flourish at the expense of the population.
      You're right: nothing new. So why keep treating it as though it has any legitimacy as long as it's going the way you like and complaining that others aren't doing enough (of what you want) when it isn't?

      I view government just like I view any bully or mugger. It is damage to route around, not to engage with. TOLFA is a good way to get over the need to "fix" this thing that isn't fixable.

      I have zero respect for government and its supporters and avoid contact with them as much as possible. I will be polite to their face when they have the drop on me only because they have the power to hurt me in that situation. Just like I try not to startle bad dogs.

      What am I going to do? Live my life. You do what you want.