BOLOs vs “Shelter-in-Place” Warnings

Saw a post from a guy griping about a “shelter in place” warning issued with no specifics. His workplace is apparently in the “epicenter” of whatever event the warning was about. No specifics, he asserts, is stupid.

I agree, but here in America’s Third World County™, where violent crimes are extremely rare (probably because nearly everyone except those who work in mandated “gun free zones” such as schools is at least likely to be armed), we don’t get “shelter in place” warnings. We get BOLOs. And yeh, full descriptions, pictures of perps, if possible, as well as specifics on the crime committed. Just in case.

Because here, violent crime is pretty darned rare, and that’s real news. Oh, and because most folks aren’t pussies who need to run and hide.

Dangerous to Whom?

The Puffington Host touts the bill referenced in the linked article as “The Most Dangerous Bill You’ve Never Heard Of.” Dangerous to whom? Certainly not to citizens who are concerned about the tsunami of “feddle gummint” encroachment on their rights. Hmmm, must be dangerous to statists and other anacho-tyrannists. . .

This bill is barely a start on reversing the illegitimate encroachment on God-given rights that darned near the whole apparatus of the “feddle gummint bureaucrappy” has become.

Are These the Best Candidates the Parties Could Find?

Many have asked the question, “Is this really the best the parties could come up with?” To answer this question, one must ask, “Best for what purpose?” The “parties” in question have for some time been little more than a Uniparty of statists concerned with little more than different tactics for enhancing their own power over society. As such, when the Uniparty selected its Anointed One, its Dhimmicrappic arm simply engineered its nomination. Now, how to assure its election? Hmmm, need a stalking horse. . . Oh, right! Make sure NOTHING, not even a legitimate challenge at convention, prevents the selection of an unelectable candidate by the Repugnican’ts!

And it was so.

And so the Uniparty has offered a fake choice of one of two evils for the presidency. (Oh, and down-ticket races are often not much better, just choices between two different statists).

#Don’tVoteForEvil

As Thomas Sowell, a genuine national treasure, IMO, has recently written,

“If a third party candidate could divide the vote enough to prevent anyone from getting an electoral college majority, that would throw the election into the House of Representatives, where any semblance of sanity could produce a better president than these two.”

Here. An article that might help: How Not to Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis

Vote for Johnson/Weld instead of throwing your vote away on either one of the two worst candidates ever put forth by the Uniparty.

A Few Modest Proposals

Nothing I propose (call it “pie in the sky dreamin'”) will ever likely come to pass, but if it were to come about. . .

How about these proposals to fix elections for public office:

Each candidate must put forth a platform as a proposed contract with the electorate. If elected, the candidate must make a good faith effort to effect the platform or be removed from office, possibly with prison and fines. Mechanisms for punishment would be tricky details, but could be worked out.

NO elective position should have the names of the candidates or their party affiliations listed on the ballot. Only the platform the candidate is committed to would be listed.

ALL voters would be required to complete a short, easy-peasy civics quiz like this one. A passing grade of better than 70% and their vote counts. I’d prefer better than 90%, but yeh, OK, since I’m dreaming anyway. . . *heh*

All ballot positions would be required to also list None of the Above as a legitimate ballot choice. If NOTA received a plurality of votes, the slate for that position would be wiped and another election held for that position.

All voters be required to produce valid photo identification.

All-in-all, these are quite modest proposals, don’t you think? *heh*

Continue reading “A Few Modest Proposals”

Signs of Tyranny

Here’s one: King Putz wants “security” labels to mean whatever he wants to assure his own and his cronies’ privacy, but privacy for the peasants? Notsomuch. When it comes to the peasants, well, they only want privacy if they are criminals, ya know?

Welcome to anarcho-tyranny, where privileged groups can get away with darnedd near anything, while common citizens are deemed criminals if they simply want to exercise their rights.

And note well: I actively HATE drunk drivers and believe any drunk drivers who commit vehicular homicide should be executed in the most horrible manner allowed under law. Still, even they have rights, rights which no law can sever, but which can only be denied exercise by a tyrannical state.

Taxes Are Theft?

Every now and then, I see the “Taxes are theft” meme crop up again. It’s simplistic and wrong. Taxes are only theft when government begins to apply revenue thus gained in violation of its essential purpose: the protection of individual rights and liberties. As long as government hews closely to its legitimate purpose, and taxes are not obtained through coercion, taxes are not theft.

Of course, this means that taxes are theft. . . *sigh*

About “Third World County’s Corollary to Santayana’s Axiom”

Democracy has a dirty lil problem that too many people tiptoe around. The Founders tried to ward against it with a design of representative democracy that allowed states to limit the franchise–with both good and bad results–and by making the only national office that was prescriptively designed as a popularly-elected post the post of Representative in the House. (The Senate posts were left to the states to fill pretty much as they wished, so some were by popular election, most by legislative appointment, etc.) The problem the Founders were trying to limit?

“In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history are usually in the majority and dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance.”–third world county’s corollary to Santayana’s Axiom

This corollary can also be stated as, “Stupid, ignorant, greedy people invariably ruin democracy for everyone else.”

Jose Ortega y Gasset noted something similar in his prophetic 1929 work, “The Revolr of the Masses,” when he noted (my extremely inadequate paraphrase/précis) that the trend in democratization was toward the coarsening of society, and indeed, that has proven to be the case. He essentially argued that those blessed with the material, mental, educational and moral blessings of modern civilization (without using these terms at ALL *heh*) had a responsibility to convey the essentially Neoclassical (architecture, literary and graphic arts)/Classical (musical arts) principles of

  • balance
  • clarity
  • accessibility
  • expressiveness
  • edification

to the masses, but that increasing democratization militated against civilizing influences. That, sadly, has proven to be the case. Many of those in our society who have been blessed with many advantages of education, material and mental resources have instead bent their advantages to greedily (and stupidly, when one thinks beyond one’s own immediate aggrandizement) manipulating the baser desires of the masses to seek an increasingly lower “lowest common denominator” to define society’s norms. Unfortunately, the defining of society’s norms by encouraging lower and lower standards and practices also tends to dumb down any putative elite as well, and the cycle becomes a vicious spiral to decay if not checked and actively reversed.

Strangely, to some (and even perhaps to those with Ortega’s mind set ;-)), the encouragement of critical thought, the inculcation and spread of Classical Values can only be found easily in the grassroots “bourgeois” leadership in the populist TEA Party movements (note the plural). Prominent “leaders” of the movement? Notsomuch, unfortunately. IMO, one finds the brightest, best-educated leaders of the populist movement with the highest ethical and moral standards on the local level.

And that local level could be the salvation of American democracy, even American representative democracy.

For further reading on how this could work, see Robert A. Heinlein’s “Take Back Your Government” for principles/strategies one can help implement. (Heinlein’s specific tactics may be a bit dated, but the strategies are applicable, IMO, and the tactics he advocates could be easily adapted to a 21st-Century political battlefield.)