I want to be able to support Johnson and Weld, but they keep talking me out of it.
This is just a rant I wrote up; after encountering the following meme on flakebook.
I want to be able to support Johnson and Weld, but they keep talking me out of it.
This meme is full of doublethink. The top two statements are in direct contradiction with the bottom four. Notice all the qualifiers.
The first two:
*The right to own guns is an absolute right
*For concealed carry and open carry.
The next one:
*Against "gun free zones" that make people less safe
Notice the qualifier "that make people less safe." He's not against gun free zones, just the ones that make people less safe. Which ones make people less safe? Good luck proving it.
*No arbitrary limits on magazine sizes.
Notice the qualifier, "arbitrary". What kind of limits on magazine sizes does he want? Non-arbitrary ones. What? You think those limits are arbitrary? Good luck proving it.
*Do not ban assault weapons out of ignorance.
Notice the qualifier, "out if ignorance." It's not that he doesn't want to ban them, it's that he doesn't want to ban them, "out of ignorance". What? You think that ban was out of ignorance? Good luck proving it!
*Limit access to guns only for criminals and mentally ill.
If access is limited, the right to own guns (keep and bear arms) is not an absolute right. No reasonably intelligent and sane person actually wants crazy people and violent criminals to be armed.
The trouble is, who decides who loses their right to keep and bear arms; because they are a criminal or crazy? The government does.
When you give them that power, they simply have to find ways to declare their political opposition to be mentally ill or criminals; in order to justify forcibly disarming them.
Why would you support ANY politician?
True. There isn't a candidate I can really get behind. There isn't a single candidate who is consistently principled in favor of liberty.
However, it might be kind of fun to support someone like Adam Kokesh or Darryl Perry in a future election.
Philosophically, I go all the way to anarchy, but I will suspect there will probably always be something that functions as a government (but maybe not the leviathan we have today).
Regardless of whether or not government is necessary, I strongly suspect there are elements of human nature that make the emergence of something that functions as government (even if we call it something else) probably inevitable.
The notion is that, if we're going to always have some form of rape, better to have the best, most equitable, least violent form of rape, isn't it?
I'm wondering why you would expect a candidate to stay principled.
How is there safety in putting a reserve lot with those who disregard safety and humanity?
Who pander to the thought of it to acquiesce a sense of false security?
What is the function of government?
Are there not but two answers?
Does government exist by means other than involuntary ones?
I think you know the answer. And if so, then how is #1 able to be produced, if it is by the violation of rights, of protection, that protection is enabled?
The notion of government is an existential matter, inherently, the same as the notion of God.
Is that not how it is that you could attempt to speak of "human nature" as though it made systematic rape inevitable?
Total psychological de-stabilization occurs not through today or tomorrow, but to define the very concept of what it is that you, and people in general, are.
It is for this reason that I have now, for a long time, been working on systematic, entertaining depth to my conversations... and, as you might guess, from what you see here, to varying degrees of success, usually verging on failure.
Made a post about this.