Skip to main content

Our highest values.

I’m particularly done with people who explain that our rights and our values only apply to government and that it’s okay when it’s private citizens who try to punish their neighbors and family members for exercising those rights.

I’m legitimately libertarian-ish and yes, I believe that all relationships should be voluntary. BUT!

Free speech and liberty are an *ethos* that is not limited to government. Our rights can’t be limited to government and still exist as protections or even concepts.

People are openly calling for the government to make laws against all sorts of speech they don’t like or opinions they view as bad for society. (I read my Dem Senator’s facebook.) Why do they think it’s okay for government to have laws to silence the bad people? Because they don’t *personally* value free speech or liberty AT ALL.

The private and public on this can’t be divided because all that’s necessary to violate what ought to be our principles is for government to look the other way while the violations are outsourced to the mob.

EXACTLY what Gina’s meme-share was talking about. Nazi Germany didn’t start with government rounding people up, the road to that horror started with neighbors or family turning on people, stopping them from working or taking care of their family or even turning them into the state.  And evil government could never have rounded people up had the private sector not cooperated fully.

The woke sin-seekers today make this delegated mob action their purpose in life and they don’t like if someone doesn’t praise them for their virtue.

How can something that is contrary to our most important formal statement of values be bad when the government does it but virtuous when off-loaded to the private sector?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Suzanne Brockman lost me.

I just finished reading the latest paperback from Suzanne Brockmann. _Dark of Night_. I'm disappointed and that's a sad thing because I've absolutely loved her series of romances about SEAL team 16 and the Troubleshooters. Aparently I'm not alone. My complaint isn't the same as most of the others... I'm great with Sophia and Dave. I even am okay with Tracey being people smart. She and Decker did seem to come out of left field. I thought Decker was great even if I thought his overwhelming conflict was pretty lame. What I didn't care for was the politics. I read for escapism, for studly dangerous men acting like men, for sex, and adventure with guns, where our military are the good guys and the SEALs are supermen and military contractor's are heroes, too. (I wonder if Ms. Brockmann realizes that the Troubleshooters ARE Blackwater?) I do not read sexy action adventure to be presented with a *cause*. It's small things but they don...
14 comments
Read more

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Shooter

I just watched the DVD. When I saw trailers for this I wanted to see it. It's the sort of movie that I usually enjoy. It wasn't bad. In fact it was pretty good in some ways and the annoying bits weren't too hard to ignore. The end was sort of bad. Not the choices that I'd make. It took conspiracy a bit too far, away from conspiracy to "this is the way the world works." It *should* have been enough to expose the Senator and his fellows. Where was the press in this? The idea wasn't too bad. The speech his spotter's widow gave about her dead husband's choices was good. (Though why she'd go back to using her maiden name I can't imagine.) Among all those willing to look the other way were several people who were... righteous. But overall it wasn't a "conspiracy" movie. There wasn't a "conspiracy" there was only finding out the "truth" of reality. In this world president Bush re...
14 comments
Read more