Archive for the ‘ People ’ Category

Their Threat Is Your Threat

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.

– Thomas Paine

We Ally with the Different, yet Closely Related…

As I’ve discussed previously, people tend to form collective groups and then campaign only for the interests of those groups.  But an interesting thing happens when these groups, though separate, recognize a common threat.  They ally.

Consider all of the people who attend a gay rights parade who are not actually gay. At these gatherings you will find practitioners of all kinds of unconventional sexual behavior: polyamory, transvestitism, BDSM, and fetishism.  We see different groups of people united out of the recognition of a common threat: people who would forcefully limit the sexual behavior of consenting adults.  They correctly recognize that successful forceful action against any of these groups sets a precedent.  That precedent says that it is okay to use force to limit private consensual behavior that some people do not like.  And once that precedent is set, these different groups know that they could be targeted next.
Read more

Religious Fanaticism vs. Hypocrisy—An OkCupid Message

So I use OkCupid to find cool women with whom to speak.  I do.  I figured that if I’m going to apply the brainpower to craft messages, I might as well share with the world.  No?

If you aren’t already familiar with OkCupid, it is a system that revolves around questions and answers.  You answer hundreds, or even thousands, of questions and then the system matches you up with other people who answered in compatible ways.  It works pretty well for nerds like me.

One woman’s profile caught my attention.  She prefers reason over fantasy.  And coffee.  I commented on one of our “disagree” questions:

I share your enthusiasm for reason over mythology. We don’t make a lot of progress in understanding anything if we’re content to say, “God did it.”

But one thing about that!

A question on which we disagreed was: What of the following is most offensive to you? Religious fanaticism or general hypocrisy?

A lot of atheists immediately respond with the “fanaticism”, but I suspect that the underlying offense is with hypocrisy, not personal adherence to zany beliefs. I mean, people believe in all kinds of nonsensical things: astrology, healing crystals, etc. Those are obnoxious, but not particularly offensive. Religion is offensive because of the religious people who want to forcefully impose on the non-religious. And they want to forcefully impose their beliefs while at the same time arguing for their right to be free of forceful imposition on the part of those with whom THEY disagree. And so it is the hypocrisy with which they operate that makes what they believe so offensive. It’s when they actually become a threat that they become offensive and even scary.

Nonsensical beliefs are a mild annoyance until people hypocritically and forcefully prioritize their belief-system over everyone else’s. I think that if people were content to stay at home and do their voodoo in private, it would be no big thing.


And I like coffee too. I just ground some beans, pressed a pot, and am indulging in a bit of funky caffeine-induced nirvana. ahhhh.

I’m Matt. Nice to meet you.

I doubt she’ll respond.  Oh well.   🙂

Take a look at my essay on the danger of forceful imposition.

State-Business Cooperation: Then and Now

The critically important idea that the law applies to the king, enshrined in the Magna Carta was, until very recently, enforced by American courts.  Consider the case of one, Ms. Roberts, whose safe deposit box was robbed by the police:
Read more

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: One of the Most Evil Books in Print by Roger Roots

When you realize that even the justice system—arguably the most basic function of government—does not work for the people, but for the government itself, you begin to wonder, “Which parts of the government are working for me?

Roget Roots explains:

Today, most federal crimes are felonies, and conviction brings more or less automatic prison time.

Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers? Up to 5 years in Federal prison. Using the telephone to incite or to “organize, promote,” or even encourage a riot? Up to 5 years. Attempting to coerce any federal employee into “any political activity”? Up to 3 years. Removing or affixing a U.S. Customs seal on any merchandise without government permission? Up to 10 years in prison. Transporting “terrorists” on your boat? Up to life in prison. Engaging in “street gang” activity? An additional 10 years may be added to your sentence. Knowingly using a misleading domain name on the Internet in order to attract viewers to online porn? Up to two years in prison. Sending a letter in the mail urging insurrection? Up to 10 years. Trading with known pirates on the high seas? Up to 3 years.

The book seems to provide dozens of separate laws exposing unwary Americans to federal prison for simply filling out paperwork wrong. (Note that these provisions are almost never applied to people in government, who regularly fill out paperwork incorrectly.) There are provisions subjecting Americans to life in prison for cocaine possession. There are open-ended provisions which may (or may not) criminalize pouring a cup of coffee on the ground (and thus violating the Clean Water Act) or accidentally catching certain breeds of fish from the oceans. It remains only for a savvy prosecutor to fill in the blanks and add to the list of crimes that Congress may (or may not) have created.

Few people are aware that the Federal Rules (not just of criminal procedure but of civil procedure, appellate procedure, bankruptcy procedure and Supreme Court procedure) are riddled with provisions that grant more time to the government to file and respond to pleadings and briefs, greater privileges of appearance, and greater ease of prosecuting and defending litigation than individuals in the private sector. The governing advisory committees that produce these rules of procedure have offered no explanation for these filing requirement disparities.

How Why What?

Here is a mental exercise.  Consider any assertion that you believe is true.  It doesn’t matter what you pick.  Now form a “how”, “why”, or “what” question from this assertion that essentially asks “How did you come to this conclusion?”  And from the answer you present yourself, ask another “how” or “why” question.  And from that response do the same.  Keep doing it until you get stuck.  Here is an example:
Read more

“Right vs. Left” Misses the Point

People are conditioned to believe that either the left or the right is their enemy.  Maybe this is confusion.

The left sees in the right advocacy of corporate exploitation, oppression of those who opt for alternative lifestyles, and the enforcement of correct religion in our country and throughout the world.  The right sees in the left the exploitation of the productive for the benefit of the unproductive, oppression of those who opt for traditional or religious lifestyles, and the enforcement of particular behaviors deemed to be healthy and/or sustainable.
Read more

Earth – The Insane Asylum

This is an excellent video that hits on several of the key points in my essays on government as force, and the problems with collectivism.  I’m rather unenthusiastic with his conclusion that the masses are insane and therefore inconvertible.  I see it as a matter of momentum.  Statism and tyranny currently have the momentum, however that isn’t necessarily inevitable—particularly with the Internet that now allows for instant widespread truth dissemination.  I believe there is cause for optimism.  Still, in spite of the pessimism, it’s a thought-provoking piece for those losing faith in the capability of government to solve problems.

Collectivism vs. Individuality

What do you think of when you ask yourself, “Who am I?”

Is it those things with which or with whom you identify?  Maybe the company for which you work?  The team for which you play or cheer?  The religion in which you believe?  The country in which you were born?  The culture into which you were born?  The brand of a particular product you wear, drive, consume, or carry everywhere with you?  The type or class of people you befriend or associate?  Your family?

Or is it those things that are unique to you?  Maybe things you have done?  The people you have helped?  The things you have learned?  The things you have accomplished?  The things you enjoy?  The experiences you have had?  Your talents?  Attributes of your personality?

Your collective identity consists of the former, while your individual identity consists of the latter.  When we think of our collective identity we say that, “I am one of them,” or “This is what we are like,” or “This is what we can do.” With our individual identity we say “This is what I am like,” or “This is what I can do.”

Read more

Politics is Force

Why is political debate such a volatile affair?  It usually seems pointless and even counterproductive.  Rarely does anyone convince anyone else of anything.  Even worse, these discussions tend to become quite emotional and heated; they seem to end with everyone more solidified in their existing opinion, except now they are also angry with the opposition.  For these reasons many people simply opt to avoid political conversation altogether.  What is the point if we are just going to create conflict and perhaps even damage relationships?

Consider that we can debate almost anything else (except maybe religion) relatively safely.  We make arguments for our musical taste, the merits of a particular film, the best city in which to live, fashion, etc.  People may have strong feelings about these things, but all except the most intolerant recognize that everyone is different and that we simply aren’t going to agree on these things.  We may even good-naturedly tease each other for the “silly” music or movies our friends like, but it is highly unlikely that we will become angry over any of this.

But what if I argue that a particular movie isn’t just great, but that it is so great that everyone should have to watch it.  It’s not just that the themes the film explores are relevant and well developed through the plot, it’s that the message is so important that people (including you) should have to watch it whether they want to or not. Whoah!  All of a sudden our conversation assumes a very serious tone.  You may very well be in a state of shock or disbelief at this assertion.  What do I mean that people should  be required to watch a movie that I like?  This is craziness!  What gives me the right to forcefully impose my will on people that way?

We may roll our eyes or shake our heads in disgust when we see another subscribe to, or do something that we perceive as absurd, but that is usually the end of it.  However if that person attempts to impose their viewpoint on us, we rightfully become defensive.  “You can do what you want, but count me out,” would be our response.  But if a man corners us in an alley and tells us to, “watch this move or else”, this is no longer a simple matter of differing opinions about a movie; we are now dealing with the use of force.  Who wouldn’t feel violated in this situation?  This is clearly an injustice, and every sane person knows that it is.

So what does this example have to do with political debate and angry conflict?  This is what:

The political debate is the process of determining against whom, and for what reasons force will be used.

Even if the tone of the discussion seems civil and cordial, beneath everything said is the implicit threat of force.  Our brains are wired to engage the “flight or fight” response when we perceive a threat.  So it is impossible not to get angry during political debate.
Read more