Words Poorly Used #108 — Foreseen

Now Diane Feinstein, a U. S. Senator (D, CA) wants to ban workarounds from previous bans. She seeks to address “unforeseen” consequences. When you pass laws tinkering with machines, the machine tinkerers will supersede your laws. That is not unforeseen. That is ignorance, ignoring every likelihood, kicking the can down the road. Gun control is a useless stopgap. As are further bans on rapid fire devices meaningless.  Grandstanding?

— Kilgore Forelle

Open This Content

The “Feeling People” Say It’s Time to Talk About Gun Laws

Yes, it is time to consider gun laws… and think of the innocent lives lost to them.

They all need to either be abolished or ignored. Permanently. And I really don’t care which. Either one would have the same positive effect.

Again, the recent massacre occurred, and was more deadly, in large part because of the existence of “gun free zones” and because of anti-gun policies that made it less likely that good people in the hotel could respond quickly to an evil loser.

As it happened, 72 minutes was considered “quick response” for people with guns to show up to stop the evil loser.

Every anti-gun “law” only affects the good people who don’t want to hurt innocent people; never the evil losers. It’s like giving them a hall pass to kill.

It’s time to end this evil loser-enabling “culture” once and for all. It’s time to make a truly polite society rise from the ashes.

Open This Content

Editor’s Break 032 – Always Be Challenging Jurisdiction (17m)

Editor’s Break 032 looks at Skyler’s trying-hard-but-failing-commitment to Socratic dialog and to always be challenging the claims that laws apply to anyone and that people calling themselves “government” have jurisdiction.

Listen to Editor’s Break 032 (17m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe

via RSS here.
via iTunes here.
via Stitcher here.
via blubrry here.
via Player.FM here.

Open This Content

“The Law is The Law”

Many people claim to have nothing against immigrants to the USA, yet they zealously oppose all illegal immigration. The law is the law, they say, and everyone should obey it.

I am wondering whether had their time and place been different, these strict legal beagles would also have supported vigorous enforcement of the U.S. fugitive slave acts of the antebellum era and the German anti-Jewish laws of the 1930s. After all, these obscene legislative acts had as much legality as today’s U.S. immigration laws.

In my view, saying that “the law is the law and must be obeyed” regardless of other considerations is tantamount to a confession of moral vacuity.

Open This Content

Government Law is a Death Penalty

I didn’t properly credit my friend and co-host Morgan Aldous for the way I heard him explain how government law leads to the death penalty. Here’s what I wrote in “If You Need Violence to Enforce Your Ideas…” which I got almost verbatim from Morgan:

Law is the death penalty for setting up an unlicensed lemonade stand. And that’s not hyperbole. What good is law if not enforced, and what good is enforcement if it won’t escalate, and what is the end point of escalation? Death by decree.

Now you might counter with, “Wouldn’t you escalate to the point of killing someone attacking you or your family?”

Well, yes, I might. I’d like to think that I’d be brave enough and capable enough to do exactly that if absolutely necessary to protect my life or the lives of my loved ones.

But is that the same thing? Most, like 99.999999~% of government laws are not enforced as a response to an act of aggression against innocent people. In fact, virtually every government law that is enforced is done so as an initiation of conflict via the threat or use of violence. Opening a lemonade stand, not maintaining your yard, collecting rain water, keeping all of your hard-earned income, smoking weed, paying for sex, moving across a fake “border,” copying digital fileset cetera, et cetera, et cetera, are not akin to attacking innocent people.

If you think it is, I have a bridge to sell you.

We already know that government laws are just a bunch of opinions. Factually, that’s what they areBut that’s not all they are. They’re the opinions of lawyers and politicians backed by the death penalty.

What good would they be if they weren’t? “The force of law” is not just getting punched by a cop. It’s getting murdered by a cop if he deems it necessary to escalate his attack on you, and he’s been granted permission by his bosses to do exactly that. It happens daily all over the world.

Read it again: people innocent of aggression are getting murdered by government every day all over the world.

Are you okay with that? Do you advocate for that? Are you a psychopath?

Maybe so. But I’m not. Maybe I’m relatively unique. Maybe I just happen to be one of the few who considers it wrong to be willing to murder people over non-aggressive actions.

If so, woe is me.

Open This Content