Civil War... Ehhhh... Not so much...

From 1968 to 1974, we were actually on the brink of a civil war.

There were literally thousands of bombings, shootings, assaults, and robberies, at least theoretically in furtherance of trying to start a civil war, and overthrow the government (in actuality a lot of the people had no clue what they were really doing or why... and a large minority of them were just in it for the sex and drugs).

Nixon resigning, ending the draft, and getting out of Viet Nam were the biggest factors in defusing that.

Also most of the people who were deliberately pushing the armed insurrections getting strung out on cocaine and heroin, self absorbed into the me generation sex and drugs and partying culture, arrested and jailed, or killed; was a big part of defusing it.

And finally, the soviets no longer paying for agitators to foment armed revolution, and the FBI stopping their operations paying and instigating agitators to do so; were the last big part of defusing it.

...It sounds insane... Like a conspiracy theory... but it's all true. You can easily confirm it for yourself...

These last few weeks... prelude to a civil war... Ehh... Not so much.

23 executive orders eh?

I have but a single comment.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

It's not about elites or idiots

Over the past few years, there has been a constant drumbeat from "progressives" (and even some non-lefties) that conservative anti-elitism is effectively "anti-science", "anti-education", "pro-stupidity" etc...

This is partially in response to the fact that many conservatives use the terms "elitist" or "the elite" (in the political and social context, not in the context of achievement... though that distinction is lost on leftists) as a pejorative.

Their basic comment comes down to "Well, if you don't want intelligent, well educated people running things who would you rather run them, idiots?"

Thus, completely missing the point.

Conservatives and libertarians aren't against smart well educated people; in fact many of us ARE smart, well educated people.

...We're against people who want to run things.

This idea is so utterly foreign to the leftist mind, that they literally cannot conceive it, or believe it.

You see, to a conservative or libertarian, it's inherently obvious... axiomatic even:

The world runs better, when everyone runs their own lives, and their own business, with as little interference as possible; save that which is absolutely necessary for the common good, or to prevent harm to others.

No government official or lawmaker can know more about your life, or your business, than you do; therefore, they cannot run your life or you business as well as you can.

No matter how smart, or well educated they may be, and no matter how many of them there are; they will always be working with less information then you have. Their information will always be less current. They will always have less experience in dealing with the conditions unique to your life and your business.

Since no-one can run your life as well as you can; no-one should.

Note: Economists call the idea that if you’re just “smart enough” “well educated enough” etc… you can make everything run right, the “perfect information fallacy”. If you could have perfect information (that is all information about all conditions and factors that could possibly effect the outcome of a decision) and perfect reason (that is, the ability to analyze all factors correctly at all times), then you could make perfect decisions. However, it is impossible to have perfect information in a complex system (never mind perfect reason) thus all decisions will necessarily be imperfect. This is the primary reason why communism or socialism… or in fact any kind of “managed economy” could never possibly work on a large scale; even if every person participating in that economy were a perfect communist, acting only for the benefit of the collective.

To a leftist, that is simply ridiculous... Impossible even. Someone has to be running things. It simply cannot be any other way.

You have to understand, leftists fundamentally and fully believe, that nothing (or at least nothing good) can possibly happen, without "someone running things".  No matter how "free" or "unregulated" something may appear to be, in reality, there is always someone behind it, really in control, and making sure it goes the way they want it to; favoring some parties and punishing others; exploiting some for the benefit of others.

Note: Conversely, this also means that whenever anything happens, it's because of the person in charge. Everything good that happens is to their credit, and everything bad that happpens is their fault. 

It's called the "daddy" (or more formally the paternalistic) philosophy of government...

As with all leftist ideas, the basic principle of the daddy government is based on what children learn during kindergarten. All money, power, control, and guidance comes from "the people in charge", like your daddy, or your teachers.

Daddy has authority, and money. From that money, he gives you your food, housing, education, medical care etc... With that authority, he sets rules, rewards you with things when you do well at what he says you should do well at; and punishes you for doing badly, for doing things he doesn't want you to do, or for not doing the things he thinks you should do.

When you need something, daddy makes sure you get it. When you want something, you ask daddy, and if he thinks you should have it, he gives it to you.

Daddy enforces "fairness". Daddy makes sure you share, and play well with others. Daddy protects you from the bad people hurting you, or taking advantage of you. When things are bad, daddy will make them all better.

I should note, some people prefer to call this the "mommy" philosophy of government... which may be closer to appropriate, given most leftists have no idea what a father is , or what they are good for anyway.

When you're five years old, daddy controls the entire world; and there's nothing daddy can't do (this is why it's called the paternalistic worldview).

Leftists have never really advanced in economic, social, or moral maturity beyond that point. They believe that the world continues to work that way as you grow up; only instead of daddy, the one in charge is "government".

In fact, they not only believe it's the way it should work, they believe it simply IS the way it works, and there can be no other possible way.

Since there is no other possible way, and someone has to be controlling things; it's absolutely critical that we get the smartest, best educated, most "elite" people to be in charge. If you're against that, it must be because you want someone in charge who is going to favor you.

Or rather, because they have such a low opinion of the common man, they believe that the people themselves are idiots, being deceived by the people who secretly want to control everything. The people who want to control everything have convinced the "common man" of the lie of the "free market", and of "equal opportunity" and "the American dream". They're all just lies the secret controllers tell the "common man", so that the controllers can rig things to favor themselves, and their cronies. Those people are anti-elitist, anti education, pro-stupidity, and want idiots to run things, because they can secretly control the idiots for their own benefit.

Note the assumption there that anyone who is smart and well educated MUST know that the leftists are right; therefore anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid, or evil.

This isn't some far out conspiracy theory by the way; this is exactly what leftists think was behind the Bush presidency. Not only do they freely and publicly admit it, they write books and make movies about it.

They completely miss the point.

They don't understand that conservatives and libertarians have a completely different idea about what government is, and what it should do.

They don't understand...

We don't want idiots running things....

We don't want ANYONE running things.

How NOT to be a Corporate Shill

A couple days ago I wrote about how I had planned on switching from AT&T to Verizon, but decided against it because their monthly bill was going to be $80 more than from AT&T for the same service features (1200 minute family plan, two lines, 250 text each, unlimited data each).

Now I've got a "regular guy" in comments, trying to talk about how Verizon is really a better deal than AT&T and how I'm an awful, mean, bad person for writing such mean things etc... etc...

Ok... a little bit of astroturf I can live with, but this is getting ridiculous. Three nearly hysterical comments so far...

UPDATE: Alright, I had a private email exchange with Jason, and it turns out, he DOES work for Verizon, but he's not in sales or marketing, and he isn't a paid shill.

He's not astroturfing, he's just really passionate about his job, and his company; and he wants to present their best position and value.

In general, you want to avoid that sort of perceived conflict of interest, by disclosing you are an employee up front. People on the internet, generally, react really badly to that sort of thing, unless you disclose first.

That said, I also understand that sometimes that can be difficult.

I work for a company that gets a lot of unwarranted criticisms and attacks, and I would LOVE to be able to defend us; but I am strictly forbidden to make any kind of public statement as a senior employee.

So a misunderstanding happened, because of a guy who really wants to do the right thing, but is in a constrained circumstance.

There's another issue I get. Big companies develop their own language. When you're in the thick of a company, you start speaking company language. So when they sound unnatural, or are very precise about branding and products etc... It's because of the internal culture of the company that reinforces that language every day (lord knows, my company has its own language too).

So, I apologize to Jason for questioning his integrity, and accusing him of astroturfing; and I'm taking down the part with the office address and phone number.

And hell, I should probably disclose, my stepmother, and my uncle, both work in senior positions at Verizon.

Yaknow, astroturfers really are idiots.

First, you don't talk like normal human beings. You're always careful to mention your proper branding etc... And you're shrill about criticism. And you are defensive about products, pricing etc...

Normal people just don't talk that way (well... some Apple fanatics do... but calling them "normal people' is a stretch).

Even if I couldn't tell from that you were astroturfers though, I would know, because I'm the site admin. I've got logs.

See, I've got your IP address.

Your IP address, that belongs to "Verizon Business"

I'd say "nice try", but really it wasn't. If you're going to be a corporate shill, at least be an intelligent, well spoken corporate shill...

Just Watched James Hansen Lie his ASS off on Letterman

That was about 10 minutes of unadulterated bullshit:

And of course, it doesnt matter that the primary source for all of this crap is a proven fraud, because it doesn't change the science at all...

... Yeah...

... Right...

The HOA Model and Next-to-Impossible Dreams

A comment from long time reader Glenn Bartley sparked something:

Mel, I just got done reading that piece again (about the 5th time, maybe the 6th) because something was bugging me about it. No not bugging me in how you want to live your life, not bugging me in that you want the government out of most of your life. Heck I work for the government and I would like to see a lot the same as you would like to see it. Less government from both the federal level and the state level would be a much better thing for all of us as far as I am concerned. Less government in general would be great - fewer lawyers, legislators, executive bureaucrats and judiciary types would mean a lot less legislation to trouble all of us. Yeah I agree with you, but I had to read it again, and again, because something just was not clicking, something seemed terribly wrong with what you said and I just could not figure it for the life of me. I could not put my finger on it after a second, even a third reading, not even after a fourth, but each time I was done reading it, I came to the same conclusion - you had just said something that seemed to bother me for some unknown reason. I slept on it, then came back to it again today, and read it again, and again and just as I finished this last time around BANG - realization went off like a shot fired next to my head. Do you realize what you just did in your anti government piece? You yourself became the government ruling others or at least stated your unwitting capacity to do so. No games from me - so here is what I mean: You said this: "Well I have a message for all you busybodies, bureaucrats, rent-seekers, and whored-out legislators. LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE. Get out of my contracts. Get off of my land. Leave my property alone. Stay the hell out of my bedroom. Most of all, KEEP YOUR NOSES OUT OF MY BUSINESS." Which is all well and fine for you and me for those who think like us. Then though, you added this: "And everyone else's for that matter." That is the part that for the past couple of days has been eating away at me, making me wonder why the heck am I so uncomfortable with what you have written when I in general agree with the overwhelming majority of it. The thing that made me uncomfortable was the fact that you were so ready to demand the government not only to stay out of your business but out of everyone's business and therefore in essence you replace the government interference in other people's lives with interference created by your demands. What I just said was not meant as a flame, nor as a troll, nor as disagreement with your opinion. It was meant only as an intellectual observation, one that raises a few questions. Here is what I mean by that: We live in a Republic where we elect officials to represent us in government. We are in the mess we are in now because too many of us, over many years, have agreed that government intrusion into our lives is the way to go. Too many of us have agreed that they need a helping hand, a shoulder to lean on, a crutch to get them through it. Yet at the same time, may of us, probably at least half if not more of our citizens wish the government would only minimally involve itself in our lives. This is an inevitable conundrum of our type of government; it is also one that is very difficult to overcome, isn't it? So just how do we overcome that issue. How do we get less government interference in our lives while at the same time not interfering with the lives of others who have elected to allow for government control in their lives? Is it possible? I think it is, but not to the extent you seem to want it to attain. I am very interested to hear what you have to say in answer to this dilemma because if we can get enough people to elucidate on this topic, we may come up with the answer, we may yet be able to save the Republic and our Constitution and at the same time give Americans a better America while at the same time reducing unnecessary government and governmental control. All the best, Glenn B

Glenn, you make an excellent point. Yes, it seems hypocritical for me to tell the .gov to get out of everyone else's business when I myself rage against control freaks in government. What about those people who voted for such intrusive government? Shouldn't we support their right to ask for intrusion?

Oh yes. We certainly should.

It's called voluntary association.

Technically, it's called "voluntary collectivism" and it's historically been expressed in many way; but I like to call it the HOA Model.

People are not required to join an HOA, it is a choice. The choice to move into a neighborhood with an HOA, sign onto the contract, and obey the rules. The rest of us may not understand their zeal to be controlled, but we don't interfere with the choice either. They have designed a mini-government that meets their needs.

Military service members, by voluntarily enlisting, leave behind the civilian code and embrace the UCMJ, which is a separate justice system (though they intersect and interact of course), and certainly a separate system of regulation.

Those joining a religion also voluntarily join a quasi-government, with its own rules and regulations. Catholics for example have rules around who can join in the sacraments and who can be married.

These are all forms of government, except with consensual interference and nannying. Hell, voluntary associations are Constitutionally protected for a reason.

The only problem is that those who want to be nannied by a secular civil government, want the rest of us to be treated like infants too.

That's the problem.

If the government minimalists (like you and I) had our way, we'd have a minimal federal government. The individual states would be more like tiny countries, with different levels of interference, different taxes, different laws etc. Those of us who want to be left alone would gravitate towards states with minimal interference; the rest could gravitate towards the nanny states. That's how we would solve the problem.

Not coincidentally, that's how the founders intended our country to be, and that's how our constitution is written (if, sadly, not how it is followed).

Unfortunately, many states would then become like Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. All 3 states are becoming Californicated as unhappy residents of Cali leave the conditions but keep the ideology that made the conditions in the first place.

I'm more than happy to leave everyone else alone. Unfortunately the pro-government control freaks are not content to leave us alone. Their "peace of mind" absolutely REQUIRES all of us to be as controlled... or really MORE controlled... than they are.

In fact, many of them believe that our mere desire for freedom, and a lack of government interference, PROVES just how much more we need to be controlled than they, the "civilized" and "enlightened" do.

What's the solution? I really have no idea. Every civilization trends towards interference, we're not exactly the first. Last time we solved the problem by moving to a new country and fighting a war; this time it won't be so simple. There isn't any place left to go to...

The only way we can ever go back is to get enough of a majority to reverse centuries of damage to the system. The only way to accomplish that is to convince our friends and neighbors that less government is a good thing, and for them to act accordingly.

Yes, and if wishes were horses...

I do see a bit of hope in technology though, and oddly enough in the attempts of the Greenies.

Currently most people are dependent on government and well... dependence to live their lives at the level they have become accustomed to. Electricity is regional and generated in bulk so we all share the same supplies. Water is too, as well as phone connections, internet, cable... nevermind that most jobs are to be found in urban centers. Food is grown or raised on huge farms and delivered to regional centers. Mass transit is still cheaper than operating a car (on an individual basis anyway), and less stressful in urban centers. Those of us who have cars are dependent on gas stations, which are dependent on long supply chains.

All of this, well, togetherness (and I don't mean that in a good way), encourages dependence on everyone else and dependence on government to keep the peace and make sure no one gets screwed over by their neighbors. And to enforce standards. And keep traffic moving. And, and, and...

My hope is, that with distributed technologies, and efficiencies in transportation; much of that is changing.

More and more jobs are mental, not physical, enabling telecommuting (at least in theory). The price of individual electricity generation is dropping precipitously. Wireless phone coverage is expanding, keeping those in rural areas in the loop. Internet can be delivered wirelessly. Satellite TV keeps getting cheaper. Amazon offers memberships where you can pay one fee a year and get free 2-day shipping. Netflix. Apple TV. HD TVs and high-end entertainment centers are more comfy than the theatres.

The cost of operating a vehicle? Dropping every day. Cross-country travel? Not a problem.

Oh, and the Greenies are pushing a "return" to family farming and energy dependence, as well as biodiesel. Between organic gardening, solar cells, wind turbines, hydroelectric, and water catchment and recycling we're fast approaching a time where family could supply much of their needs on their own rural property (if they had a couple acres per family member anyway).

Soon no one will have to be tied to landlines, cable, city water and sewer, or huge utilities. The cost of biodiesel converters is rapidly dropping while efficiency is improving, and every gardener has waste of one form or another to convert. Gas stations may eventually become obsolete.

Once we don't HAVE to live close together to have all the "modern conveniences", and technological independence is possible, how many will opt for independence? How many, upon experiencing independence, will take kindly to government interference? How much more intrusive will government become if we aren't so easy to find anymore, not as dependent, and we have to be hunted down?

That right there is basis for a new revolution; and my hope is that it will be both a successful one, and require no (or no more) bloodshed.

Maybe there is hope after all.

Mel

Just a Thought...

You might end up with a lot more converts to your cause if you didn't insinuate that everyone who looks into a government job is an unprincipled apparatchik.

Just a thought.