tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post3502674122559297402..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Unwarranted ViolenceWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-49250427723176406532008-12-03T07:55:00.000-07:002008-12-03T07:55:00.000-07:00Dusty, my point is that the Constitution is meanin...Dusty, my point is that the Constitution is meaningless if your rights are derived from and protected by this piece of parchment. According to the original intent of the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms was enumerated and acknowledged (not granted) precisely to defend against such animals. Yet the State co-workers of these thugs, the Courts and lawyers, do what they do: defend their existence and that of their co-workers by twisting around words on a piece of paper, and consider themselves very important indeed for having done so. Truth be damned, as long as they have power and some words can be twisted to suit their fancy. <BR/><BR/>Anyone can twist words on a piece of paper. Nobody can twist the truth itself. The latter is what we need to embrace. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, I think any action that a badgethug performs, if it cannot be done morally by <I>any other person</I> is an immoral act. That includes stopping you for having a tail light out, backed up by violence if you <I>dare</I> ignore him. That includes stopping and cuffing you for not carrying a state-issued permission slip to carry a firearm for your own protection. That includes roadblock checkpoints where everyone is stopped. In other words, if you or I can't do it morally, neither can a badgethug. In fact, badgethugs have no right to make a living at a trough filled with money and property taken by force or the threat thereof. <BR/><BR/>The State is itself an abuse, as Edmund Burke said. <BR/><BR/>The only thing violence can be used for is defense: defense from a physical attack upon one's person or property. And even then, the amount of violence you may use depends upon how grave the threat is. No one, badgethug or not, can <I>ever</I> initiate violence. <BR/><BR/>You and I and the badgethug, in a true, normal, society (which is always comprised of voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions: anything else is a parody and abuse of society) all have the same authority. Authority is either given directly by God, (e.g., parent over the child, priest over the faithful,) or it is given voluntarily by one person to another (e.g., the employer over the employee.) A parent may discipline his child, as the will of the child is in the custody of the parent until he is emancipated, but among adults, force may only be used to defend oneself or another: not to "teach someone a lesson." <BR/><BR/>Badgethugs only have more power, and they call that power "authority." Power and authority are not the same thing. <BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-75595473517121151722008-12-02T22:24:00.000-07:002008-12-02T22:24:00.000-07:00Anonymous I am not here to quibble with you about ...Anonymous I am not here to quibble with you about where rights come from I am trying to state to the people that the rights exist and its time we implemented them where ever they come from. Now we can sit here all day discussing proper structure or we can implement what is at our access if we were more concerned about rogue agents and renegade officers clubbing us about the neck and head and a little less on story structure we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now sure words mean a lot but action means more lets put these words into action there called self-Defence the time to use them is at handdustyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12621593941536152486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-22326363535846818742008-12-02T20:21:00.000-07:002008-12-02T20:21:00.000-07:00In addition, let me state very clearly: no right c...In addition, let me state very clearly: no right can be "stolen," "taken" or "destroyed." A right can only be <I>infringed.</I> If you take a hundred dollars from me at gunpoint, you have not destroyed my right to my money. You have only denied my right and infringed it. <BR/><BR/>We cannot afford to be sloppy with definitions. As a very young child once said, with more truth and candor than I have heard from more adults, "Words mean stuff." <BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-45721236628018661652008-12-02T20:18:00.000-07:002008-12-02T20:18:00.000-07:00Dusty, the Founding Fathers gave us a piece of pa...Dusty, the Founding Fathers gave us a piece of paper that sits there and moulders. God gave us His law, freedom, and rights. These things are inherent to our human nature, and not are not dependent or based upon any document written by men. <BR/><BR/>My laws aren't written on a piece of paper. They're written on our hearts. God's law is my only law. If it doesn't fit into the confines of <I>God's law,</I> it's not a law. The Constitution? The Bill of Rights? Nobly intended, doubtless, but still splashes of ink on paper. True ideas that are converted to action by the human intellect and heart are what protect our rights, which are based upon our <I>human nature,</I> which was endowed by <I>God!</I> <BR/><BR/>-Sans Authoritas<BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-67845941375875938172008-12-02T15:47:00.000-07:002008-12-02T15:47:00.000-07:00Will I don,t usually comment in bloggs but your ar...Will I don,t usually comment in bloggs but your article's are quite interesting. First of all I have to say to the people who read these bloggs NO-ONE and I mean NO-ONE has authority over you. When you came to this planet you gave NO-ONE power over you I don,t care what badge,uniform,I.D. or status that person has. The way I have learned to balance the rules here are if a law does not fit into the confines of the Constitution it is a void law no matter what individual created it if this void law is enforced it becomes a criminal act and everyone has the authority to resist a criminal act. Any law enforcement officer who enforces a criminal act has stepped over the line and deserves no respect when the people get it through there thick skulls that there rights are being removed by corrupt politicians we will continue to slide down this slope right into the pit created for us. So people get rid of the fear,guilt,the what will people say mentality and begin to exert your rights remember a right is not a privilege and can-not be removed by anyone no matter who they are NO-ONE has authority over you.The founding fathers gave us the way and the means to regain these stolen rights its time we began to use them it would make them proud and let them know they did not suffer in vain.dustyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12621593941536152486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-50036224666834070742008-12-01T18:56:00.000-07:002008-12-01T18:56:00.000-07:00Gilberto broke the rules. The penalty for breaking...Gilberto broke the rules. The penalty for breaking the rules is death.<BR/><BR/>Rules exist for the sake of rules, not for the sake of the things they are intended to protect, and they certainly do not exist for the sake of benefiting every individual. Again, rules exist for their own sake. The only entity that exists for its own sake is God.<BR/><BR/>The moral of the story is: worship the State and its rules.<BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-75850584062038633442008-12-01T04:58:00.000-07:002008-12-01T04:58:00.000-07:00Gilberto Blanco met the worst fate in his first en...Gilberto Blanco met the worst fate in his first encounter with the police. Lacking a criminal record of any sort, or a history of prior violence, Gilberto's transgression was swinging a folding chair at a police officer. The female officer felt dutybound to protect the windshield of a minivan, that the down on his luck Mexican immigrant was attacking. At 46, Gilberto was working pick up jobs, unmarried and childless, living in one half of a rented room that was less than fifty square feet, six thousand miles away from his home, and pathetically lonely. The officer could have backed down, or she could have tried to use lesser means of force, if the windshield was that important to her. Perhaps she was not comfortable using lesser means of force, since she was three inches shorter than Gilberto. But her pride more than made up for her stature, since she refused to budge as Gilberto ran accross the lot at her armed with the deadly folding chair. The officer is now on desk duty. She put an end to the threat to her physical well being with a single shot that pierced Gilberto's heart.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/nyregion/01coney.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-55201377222088858242008-11-28T20:00:00.000-07:002008-11-28T20:00:00.000-07:00By the way, here is a Yahoo search on "police shoo...By the way, here is a <A HREF="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=police+shoot+fleeing+suspect&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2" REL="nofollow">Yahoo search</A> on "police shoot fleeing suspect."Qnunchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03276241501396117972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-52352538933553136732008-11-28T19:51:00.000-07:002008-11-28T19:51:00.000-07:00Yep. The State wants to kill us.Until I started re...Yep. The State wants to kill us.<BR/><BR/>Until I started reading the Will Grigg and LRC blogs and Nock's "Our Enemy, the State," I was all for the death penalty for the likes of Bundy, Gacy, et al. I realize now that the State couldn't care less about serial killers -- they are, however, obsessed with murdering pot smokers (google Neutered Gingrich), people who run from the police, and well, everybody else. The preferred method seems to be to "shoot 'em in the back."<BR/><BR/>Also: there have been over <A HREF="http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-follows-are-names-where-known.html" REL="nofollow">384 taser murders</A> since 9/11 when WE became the enemy; <A HREF="http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=633&Itemid=100" REL="nofollow">2,002 suspects died in police custody during three years</A>, 2003 through 2005; 55 percent of those being "homicide by cop," 32 percent of <I>those</I> being black, 20 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent other. That 55% rate is being charitable, since 12% of all these in-custody deaths were ruled "suicides," 7% "accidental injury," 6% "illness or natural causes," and 7% "unknown." Sure.<BR/><BR/>Check out these <A HREF="http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/03/nation/na-alito3" REL="nofollow">two</A> <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2131373" REL="nofollow">articles</A> about Sam Alito's 1984 memo when he was a Reagan administration lawyer. A 15-page memo supporting the policemen's right to shoot fleeing suspects in the back. To paraphrase his point: "Of course the police can shoot unarmed teenage boys in the back when they are fleeing the police! If not, we are in danger of our entire society breaking down, blah, blah, blah." Thank God the liberals on the Supreme Court disagreed. (<A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1" REL="nofollow">TENNESEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)</A>) Here's another article supporting shooting in the back: <A HREF="http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/jul/18/sen_coburn_thinks_police_should_" REL="nofollow">"Senator Coburn Thinks Police Should Shoot Drug Suspects in the Back."</A><BR/><BR/>Not to be outdone for drug hypocrisy, check out my own Senator, Richard Shelby, Drug Warrior and White Trailer Trash Extraordinaire, on <A HREF="http://timt.net/public_html.orig/shelby_drugs.php3" REL="nofollow">his views</A> of drugs. (<A HREF="http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/10/1008.html" REL="nofollow">Different rules applied to his drug-smuggling son, of course</A>.)<BR/><BR/>I imagine also that The State will want to murder home-grown terrorists by the preferred method of back-shooting. This is from the <A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20070214002655/http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/home.htm" REL="nofollow">Alabama homeland security training and awareness program</A>. Start <A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20070209054040/www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/inter_terr.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A> to read about international and domestic terrorists. Three pages are devoted to international terrorists, i.e., Islamic extremists and Islamic extremists; seven pages are devoted to domestic terrorists, which includes let me check oh yeah every American.<BR/><BR/>In Alabama there are hate groups, anti-government groups, anarchists, separatists, and single issue extremists. Hate groups consist of the ubiquitous KKK (I'm 55 and I saw one once as a teen). Do you believe that gun control equals enslavement? Or that the Constitution has been subverted and the U.S. has lost its sovereignty? Then you are a terrorist. Believe it or not, <B>it only gets worse.</B><BR/><BR/>Notice the training course can be found only in the archives. After it made the rounds of the internet and was laughed to scorn, it was pulled. Not changed or revoked, just hidden. Oh those crazy southerners!<BR/><BR/>But wait. The same course appears almost word for word on <A HREF="http://www.pa-aware.org/" REL="nofollow">Pennsylvania's homeland page</A>. (Start reading <A HREF="http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/international.asp" REL="nofollow">here</A>.) "Hate groups" has been replaced by "white supremacists" and "neo-Confederates" were added (Tom DiLorenzo, watch your back!) but other than that, it has the same three pages devoted to Islamo-fascists, and seven pages devoted to Pennsylvanians.<BR/><BR/>I had found another state (Nevada?) which is also word for word the same. Although other states have pulled theirs, probably thanks to the much-deserved scorn and derision heaped on Alabama's page, but I've seen hints that they are also word for word, which means this madness was not written by the States, but came straight from D.C. Check your own state, but prepare yourself. You WILL be angry.<BR/><BR/>Will, you said sometimes you were mistaken for Marco Rivera, who is some football player I suppose, and since I'm a girl, I mean football. Yuck. On YouTube you look sort of like Carlos of Desperate Housewives who is everybody's favorite, so please change your picture. It just doesn't do you justice. Was that you singing or were you in the background? Cool video, football or not.Qnunchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03276241501396117972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-90759988854455147612008-11-27T22:51:00.000-07:002008-11-27T22:51:00.000-07:00Police are dumb idiots who think they are the law ...Police are dumb idiots who think they are the law when in fact, they are paid to protect the law. <BR/>Cops today can't be trusted. <BR/>They lie, steal, cheat, and worse. <BR/>Some even kill. <BR/>Cops use tasers the wrong way, and they don't seem to care because it makes them feel big. <BR/>In reality, cops are small. <BR/>Few have an education, and even less are smart. <BR/>They bully and bully. <BR/>The courts side with cops no matter what, sometimes even in the face of truth against them. <BR/>The entire system is a crime. <BR/>The people are fed up with it all, and in the end, the system will lose. <BR/>So will the police. <BR/>I am, <BR/><BR/>George Vreeland HillGeorge Vreelandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03658082724120739447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-20106556908546143102008-11-25T17:32:00.000-07:002008-11-25T17:32:00.000-07:00WorthNoting, zeyda is yiddish for grandfather -- a...WorthNoting, zeyda is yiddish for grandfather -- and I meant that in a light-hearted way.NeilSchippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-39563077761900793102008-11-25T15:33:00.000-07:002008-11-25T15:33:00.000-07:00Neil my apologies. Upon rereading my post it does ...Neil my apologies. <BR/>Upon rereading my post it does seem to have a pro belief slant. Had actually meant for the whole thing to have more of a light-hearted tone.<BR/>Attempts to instill belief are pointless. <BR/>Doesn't matter to me one way or the other how you spin reality.<BR/>You had brought up "checking" though, so . . . I had meant only to suggest a way to do this that wouldn't involve other people's beliefs, doctrines etc which can become tedious.<BR/>I don't know what a zeyda is . . .hopefully nothing unpleasant.:D<BR/>Was serious about continuing to discuss alternative methods of any "policing" needed in communities though. I hadn't thought of rotating volunteers as a larger part of the local police force before. <BR/>Folks lacking experience with weapons and/or crisis situations could easily freeze or respond with too much force which could effect the success of this.<BR/>There isn't an acceptable justification for government to command this however.<BR/>The idea of incentives in exchange for citizens providing this service is good.<BR/>I'd thought of that some as a way to bring medical costs down.WorthNotinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474717140633126479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-71830802947829779462008-11-25T10:31:00.000-07:002008-11-25T10:31:00.000-07:00Back off man! What has Liberace ever done to you?M...Back off man! <BR/>What has Liberace ever done to you?<BR/>May he rest in lavender peace. Don't make me go Castro Street medieval on you!<BR/>I'll slap you so hard with my Gucci purse you'll be seein' rainbow coloured stars! <BR/>I'm only gonna tell ya once!<BR/>Just back off Liberace!<BR/><BR/>-Sensitive SidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-26897585799075455472008-11-25T10:22:00.000-07:002008-11-25T10:22:00.000-07:00WorthNoting: "Your efforts to instill doubt remind...WorthNoting: "Your efforts to instill doubt remind me of the fellow in the movie.."<BR/><BR/>Well, your efforts to instill belief remind me of my zeyda!<BR/><BR/>The analogy to the problem of debating the existence of color with a blind man gets closer to the truth than I think you realize. What we believe has a lot to do with private experience, that is, mental states (and of course these are in turn heavily influenced by the surrounding culture and the power of suggestion).<BR/><BR/>We require a process of verification and replication in order to tentatively inch closer to a reality outside ourselves, a process that requires a willingness to cull notions that don't meet certain standards.<BR/><BR/>Of course, life is lived in private mental states, and I appreciate that many people adopt strategies for anxiety reduction and joy induction that seem to work very well for them. But individual proclamations provide a very limited basis for truth claims.<BR/><BR/>..<BR/><BR/>Will, yes, music, guitar playing, frustration, distinctive voices.<BR/><BR/>One thing to get out the way: when I said "smarty pants", I wasn't referring to the guitar work of SD, but to the smart untouchably cool attitude, their wonky "out" progressions and their precision arrangements. In fact, one of the elements of their work that's most appealing to me is the juxtaposition of these extreme fall-down wild-assed guitar solos with the 15 layers of tightly scripted instrumentation (something Chicago did earlier, but there are limits to the comparison.)<BR/><BR/>(A slight tangent: there's a site called sugarmegs.com with scads and scads of mostly live concert recordings, lots from bands of our generation; it has a steely dan practice recording -- lousy audio -- of songs in progress for Katy Lied; in Throw Out Your Gold Teeth, you can hear an early version of the guitar solo; it's actually darn close to the final, dispelling any suspicions I may have had of it being a spontaneous creation -- brilliant solo though -- but there's a golden moment just after the solo, when you hear the other guy (not sure if its Becker or Fagen) REACT to it for what has to be the first time. priceless.)<BR/><BR/>So... yeah, you talked about frustration at not finding a distinctive voice. Well, first I want to tell you that I am still awed by the people who, due to whatever combination of self-discipline, brains, memory, inspiring or pushy teachers or parents, god-given (yeah, I know.. the culture has habituated me to very convenient idioms) coordination and fine motor control, reached a high level of skill: tons of memorized melodies effortlessly rendered, ease of identifying chords and changes, knowing why chords and scales fit, having lots of full-blown pieces ready for performance at the drop of a hat, and *shudder* sight reading.<BR/><BR/>I never achieved anything close to that; some of my buddies (and sounds like you) did. My playing is still haphazard and unreliable overall, and I still admire any guy who can find his footing in just about any musical situation, and especially those comfortable with solo performance. <BR/><BR/>That said, fact is, there's also the dangerous phenomenon of being a guitar nerd, someone who's always putting in the hours to be on top of the game, and especially, hyper-focusing on the nuances of other people's work.<BR/><BR/>My theory is that it can distract one from other aspects of life's work. We are social animals, and music making is social work. If the facility to attune to people, faulty, hungry and needy as they are, to visit another's perspective, if this wisdom is insufficiently developed, one can become like TV: a polished, calculated attention-hungry entertainment delivery device.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to tell you more about my own experiences, my relatively recent forays to the stratosphere, but maybe another time. Be well!Neil Schippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-50427747942275972752008-11-24T23:41:00.000-07:002008-11-24T23:41:00.000-07:00This is certainly an interesting tossing about of ...This is certainly an interesting tossing about of ideas.<BR/>Don't know that having accountants and secretaries trotting about with guns and badges would make me feel more secure but keep those ideas coming . . .<BR/>Neil you mentioned:<BR/>"I've checked and checked again: the probabilty of the existence of any particular supernatural deity is exceedingly close to zero."<BR/>Indeed.<BR/>Golly Neil!<BR/>Where exactly have you been checking?<BR/>Have you tried checking directly with God???<BR/>Cause obviously this is something personal between you and God.<BR/>So what the heck! Go directly to the source Neil.<BR/>I urge you to go to some lovely lofty hilltop, throw your arms up to the sky and scream,<BR/>"Hey God! If you exist then prove yourself to me! Of my own free will I now challenge you to remove my doubt! Let your infinite power be used to reveal yourself to me in ways even I cannot miss or explain away!"<BR/>Really put some passion into this and let your sincere desire "to know" fill your being.<BR/>Afterward, just sit down, kick back and chill for a bit. . . maybe eat an apple or two. Make a brief notation of the day and the time. Then saunter on back home, secure and smug in the fact that since "nothing happened" immediately after you did this, that you were right. :D<BR/>Your efforts to instill doubt remind me of the fellow in the movie Chicago who says, "what are ya gonna believe, what you see or what I tell ya?"<BR/>Cause the power of God has shown itself - up close and personal - during my life.<BR/>So it's not a matter of "belief in things unseen" but rather an acknowledgment of what I KNOW to be true - based on my own experiences.<BR/>Yet, to explain those experiences "with words" in such a way that another could "believe" based on those words alone would be futile.<BR/>It would be akin to debating the existence of color with a blind man.<BR/>If he insists color "is not real" - is he wrong?<BR/>If scientists can explain what "causes us" to "perceive" color - are they right?<BR/>Who knows. . .<BR/>Gotta do your own vision quest Neil. Could be fun. ;)<BR/>Re: music and things going to hell in a Honda.<BR/>I really enjoy John McCutcheon's work (even though his viewpoint sometimes differs from mine). Anyone that can make me think AND GRIN - as much as he does - is a keeper.<BR/>My favorite is: "It's the Economy, Stupid" on his Hail to the Chief CD but check out:<BR/> * Let's Pretend<BR/> * Our Flag<BR/> * Hope Dies Last<BR/> * Ashcroft's Army<BR/>at this link<BR/>http://www.folkmusic.com/t_mp3.htm<BR/>Gotta go but I sure do enjoy this blog!WorthNotinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474717140633126479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-42310576418041327922008-11-24T16:38:00.000-07:002008-11-24T16:38:00.000-07:00I've said this before and I will keep saying it un...I've said this before and I will keep saying it until it happens. There is an easy way to fix this. Every government worker should have to wear an audio and video recorder while they are working as a matter of law. If there is no A/V record to back up their testimony, the testimony should not be allowed in court. If the worker has demonstrated problem with using the recorder properly, they should be dismissed. This will solve at least 90% of these problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-67028953049343628672008-11-24T14:45:00.000-07:002008-11-24T14:45:00.000-07:00Unarmed Bobbies in London no longerseems to be as ...Unarmed Bobbies in London no longer<BR/>seems to be as ridiculous as it<BR/>used to, eh?<BR/><BR/>Now we're getting the picture.<BR/><BR/>Say, whatever happened to the<BR/>unarmed Bobbies in London?willbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-81895708821074214902008-11-24T09:10:00.000-07:002008-11-24T09:10:00.000-07:00Sam:The DC cop you describe is apparently not an u...Sam:<BR/><BR/>The DC cop you describe is apparently not an uncommon creature. My wife was part of a civil jury about four years ago in Fairfax County, VA in which a cop (I can't remember the jurisdiction he was assigned to) was attempting to sue a suspect whom he had pursued on suspicion of DUI. The cop claimed that he had "sustained permanent back injuries" while attempting to wrestle the suspect to the ground. It emerged during the trial that this cop (an obese, donut-munching clod, as my wife described him) had attempted this same tactic, apparently unsuccessfully, against four other "suspects" in the previous five years. This only served to further detract from his already unbelievable testimony, so my wife and her peers ultimately ruled for the defendant. She said that the look on not only the cop's face, but the judge's face as well was one for the books. Apparently these two tax-fed parasites believed that they were ENTITLED to some of the poor defendant's money (the man was so destitute that he couldn't even afford an attorney to represent him against the copthug's charges!). <BR/><BR/>To his credit, the judge did NOT overturn the jury's verdict and render a judgment notwithstanding, but my wife and I were surprised to learn that Virginia law actually allows cops to sue suspects for job-sustained injuries. I don't know how many states allow this, but I consider it one of the more disturbing legal loopholes. Here is another particularly egregious example of armed tax parasites attempting to shake down citizens for more "protection money" using the civil courts as a weapon (fortunately, this suit was ultimately dismissed):<BR/><BR/>http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2007/10/fl-police-offic.htmlliberranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00555275410576294081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-30151033635674495332008-11-24T07:01:00.000-07:002008-11-24T07:01:00.000-07:00Neil, I am against anything that involves coercing...Neil, <BR/><BR/>I am against anything that involves coercing the will or any other initiation of violence in order to implement it. That includes taking money from one group, at gunpoint, to give it to another (preferred healthcare.) <BR/><BR/>Society doesn't need any top-down "engineering." They need an individual-up belief in the truths of what it means to live and thrive as a real human being. And that can't be forced. <BR/><BR/>Regarding fishing village A: All humans everywhere share the same human nature. We are programmed, by nature, to seek God, as biologists are learning. If, as so many atheists say, "Organized religion is the cause of so many deaths," why would it be considered biologically superior to develop such a trait, considering it is a hindrance to the survival of the species? Why complain about it, if it pares down the number in a species so the rest may survive? (This is what many atheists claim as necessary when they talk about human existence, er, <I>population</I> control.)<BR/><BR/>Is a certain set of ideas beneficial to peaceful interaction among indivduals on the whole? Who cares? It doesn't answer my question: why should anyone not act any way he wants? You're still talking about practicality here. Why bring deities into a discussion about practicality? My question, which you did not address, was, "Why <I>should</I> they not," not "why <I>do</I> they not?" <BR/><BR/>Fishing village B: drought, famine, enemy tribes moving in . . . it sounds as though you are intimating there is going to be some violence and stealing on the horizon. You call this "different." It will not be peaceful. But then, if one group of matter with one set of synapse firing sequences wants to manipulate another, who is anyone to say it is "undesirable?" Desires? That indicates an individual will that chooses. Will, as it is understood, cannot be acknowledged (sorry, Mr. Grigg, it's true) in such a mindset. <BR/><BR/>In the materialist belief system (and it is a belief system, like any other, except for the whole "conforming to reality part," I'm afraid) a piece of malleable clay strapped to a table, being suffocated, having his nails ripped out and testicles fried by another piece of malleable clay, all the while emanating physical noises of a certain frequency . . . it is nothing but an interesting physical phenomenon. You cannot believe otherwise. There <I>is</I> no physiological reason to do so. Absolutely no reason. But you act as though there is. In a world where there is no afterlife for any creature, there is no reason for a thing to lay down its life for another thing, if it does not acquire any physical benefit. (This is not to say that rats believe in heaven when they instinctively fight for the survival of their brood, which they also, at times, themselves devour. This is to say that ultimately, there is no reason for it. No meaning. No purpose for one thing to lay down existence for any other thing.) But you live in a world where you praise the man who lays down his life for others, without regard for his own physical existence. Why? What is praiseworthy? He did what is programmed. <BR/><BR/>As I said before, you live in a world where your beliefs do not match your actions. Where your actions do not reflect the nature of the universe. Failure to acknowledge this fact will result in insanity. You cannot live and act one way while simultaneously holding contradictory views on how people should act. That's why certain types of insane people laugh so much. They became insane by not being able to cope with not being unified in body and, to you, body. To me, body and soul. <BR/><BR/>Concerning the dust cloud example: I can see how a dust cloud is very, very complex, physically. How difficult it may be to predict the flight path of each particular particle. But given a powerful enough computer endowed with enough variables, it is possible. The dust particles act in such a way due to their nature, and due to the nature of the wind. These are all predictable. <BR/><BR/>You say that human choices are predictable. Given enough simplicity, a computer may be able to pick up, in the brain, what color or odor a person is thinking of. But that computer will never be able to tell us what the ultimate source of those synapse firings are. It took men thousands of years to finally come up with computers that are infinitely less complex than the human brain. Does that tell you anything? Like I said, the belief in God, like love, isn't about scientific proof. You just have to believe. That's very plebeian to some. Yet complexity, in itself, explains nothing. <BR/><BR/>For the atheist, the most "complexity" can do is serve as a truly-believed-in excuse, a faith-based amulet of warding, as it were, to give the mind respite from considering the ultimate source of all the tiny, simple acts that are contained in the whole of any complex action. And why they should exist at all. Certainly, they can exist. But why? Science? Complexity? Do these things exist on their own, for their own sake? The idea of an entity existing by its own power and for its own sake sounds amazingly like the idea of God. So, you choose what you want to worship as your god. Some call science their god. Some call the law their god. Some call themselves their god. Some live in accordance with reality and acknowledge God as God. <BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-5380301964725412732008-11-24T06:24:00.000-07:002008-11-24T06:24:00.000-07:00Will,excellent post! A great number of folks do no...Will,<BR/><BR/>excellent post! A great number of folks do not know that the members of the police are earning overtime when they are in court. So of course it is in their interest to give out as many tickets as possible as it gets them out of normal duty and they can sit back and lord it over the people who have no chance in a "my word against their word" situation in court. To make things even sweeter they get overtime.<BR/><BR/>I found this out a long time ago when I was stopped one night and when I asked the officer what the problem was he said I drove over the "center line". When I informed him that I did no such thing, he told me to "tell my side of the story in court". Needless to say, I had no chance in court and had to pay a fine and court costs.<BR/><BR/>a few days later I found out that all cops get overtime to be in court..<BR/><BR/>Will, do you have any idea why Cops are paid overtime to sit in court? it seems logical that these parasites would of course jump to boost their salaries in this thuggish way.<BR/><BR/>And one more thing I remember when I lived near Boston. Any kind of work being done on any road in our area required that at least one (sometimes 2) Cop be present for safety reasons. Apparently the Union reps for the police got the state to pass a law regarding this and therefore any roadwork of any kind had a cop either sitting in his cruiser or standing by earning a lot of dough. The Boston Globe did a story once where a lot of cops were pulling down over a 100K doing this overtime scam.<BR/><BR/>Of course the Pols were afraid to make a comment against this else they would be branded as pro-crime etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>Another acquaintance I had when living in Virginia was a DC cop. And he loved to get into scuffles with any possible perpetrator.. reason being 1) He loved to be able to get some aggression out (in his words) legally and 2) He would often fake an injury and would go on disability and get a few free weeks to go fishing.. I remember he once did a 13 week disability (after he beat up on a drunk and pretended to be hurt in his shoulder) where he used to wear his arm in a sling to pick up his paycheck and then still show up at our softball game to play.<BR/><BR/>He certainly knew how to game the system to his advantage..<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, 99% of the cops are just sucking on the teet of the public's taxes.<BR/><BR/>SamSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-84684474310448887562008-11-23T21:52:00.000-07:002008-11-23T21:52:00.000-07:00Anonymous, as to your post before last, I really w...Anonymous, as to your post before last, I really wasn't seeking out this kind of god and morality conversation today! I'll only briefly say that much about morality has been explained by evolutionary biology to my satisfaction. This is not a claim about <I>ought</I> -- it's claim about <I>is</I>. There's just so much that humans do -- from the most vile to the most self-sacrificial and noble, not to mention the mundane exchanging of favours -- that many species of animals, with the cognitive abilities they've evolved, do also. If one keeps one's head <I>solely</I> in political history and philosophy and affairs of state, it's easy to miss that. (It doesn't help that our species' success has squeezed the gorillas, chimps and bonobos into extremely tiny enclaves.)<BR/><BR/>As for oughts -- the things we <I>say</I> we are for -- well, we've been largely in agreement about these since kindergarten.<BR/><BR/>Please ponder how plausible is this scenario: little Honduran fishing village in the year 1400, about 150 bodies, mostly kin. Life's been good for a few generations: good fishing, lots of pineapples and mangos, no neighbours nearby or if so, relations with them are good.<BR/><BR/>Do they eat their babies? Is everyone a psychopathic kitten stomper? If not, why not? Why do they have some enforced codes that limit what individuals can take for themselves, maybe codes about leaving the other guy's daughter alone until there's some kind of an agreement, or about who has the final say in disputes about placement of huts. How to account for this in the absence of exposure to the Abrahamic deity?<BR/><BR/>Well, one thing I grant you is that they most likely had a deity. Probably a whole bunch of them. Not to mention stories of how the world came into existence. Maybe something to do with turtles.<BR/><BR/>And over at this other fishing village, different time and place, we have drought, diminishing food supply, maybe neighbours edging closer. Hunger, anxiety, fear. How different their actions will be.<BR/><BR/>And we, the beneficiaries of those who figured out the conversion of fuel into mechanical work, and naval warfare, we with our fine clothes and supermarkets and libraries, will we call their behaviour immoral, evil, and think we are saying something meaningful?<BR/><BR/>More and more am I convinced that moral vanity approaches greed as a source of our woes.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, morality is relative. That's NOT the same as saying, anything goes. Following Sam Harris, the vast "space" of possible moralities gets pared down significantly when faced with the need to confer benefits to survival -- benefits like trust, cooperation, anxiety reduction, leveraging the brainpower of females and what not.<BR/><BR/>That was witlessly without brevity.<BR/><BR/>As to policing, I'm not sure you really addressed the question. Eliminating silly drug laws will not eliminate the need for policing. I doubt there exist communities with populations numbering higher than a few hundred that don't.<BR/><BR/>Would my "national service program" be compulsory? I'd certainly want to explore what positive incentives could achieve, but with a complex populous society, it's hard to imagine disincentives (beyond damage to reputation) not coming in to play; so, things like eligibility for public sector employment, higher ed, maybe preferred medical insurance.<BR/><BR/>On the absence of true free will: well, since the idea is loathsome to you, I'm not sure you can give it a fair hearing. But if you're willing to challenge yourself, check out some modern neuro-psych findings. Like experiments where the machine identifies the decision you're about to make: it determines the choice made by looking at a subsystem before the "you" (that thing that you think is you) is conscious of it. There's more, but, check out the Buchanan; also, Risk by Dan Gardner.<BR/><BR/>A nice thing (for someone who might make the transition to hard materialism) is that genes, and their interaction with the myriad influences during embryonic development and early infancy -- the sounds and sights and vibrations and meals (all of which translate into biochemical inputs) -- these effects are all so utterly, so staggeringly complex, that who you are as an individual -- what music and ideas and flavours you prefer, what causes annoyance or joy -- still turns out to be (unsurprisingly) pretty darn unique. Just think of a 60 second dust storm -- can anyone predict where each grain will end up? Is the fact that I'm not smart enough to make such predictions really an argument for an "immaterial individuating animating principle"?<BR/><BR/>Will, our dear host, I'm being rude, aren't I? Thanks for your enjoyable remarks, and I do have some musical ruminations in process, but I'll submit what I've got for now. I'm just not very fast.Neil Schippernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-38617994767759027002008-11-23T20:42:00.000-07:002008-11-23T20:42:00.000-07:00Sans Authoritas, well said.If man is relegated to ...Sans Authoritas, well said.<BR/><BR/>If man is relegated to live under the reductionist worldview of scientism, than Stalin wasn't responsible for his democidal edicts; he was just naturally acting out what his 'brain squirt' forced him to do. He had no choice, so why hold him or anyone else morally accountable for any activity that are determined solely by a synapse? <BR/><BR/>Again, Dostoyevsky was right. "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."<BR/><BR/>In 'Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology', published by Oxford University Press, the brilliant atheist philosopher Quentin Smith admitted to the equally brilliant theist philosopher William Lane Craig that "The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing...We should instead acknowledge our foundation in Nothingness and feel awe at the marvellous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being."<BR/>-page 135<BR/><BR/>So there you have it. The universe in all it's incredible, irreducible, and specified complexities came into existence by something less than the eraser tip on your pencil! For at least your eraser IS something, but according to one of the West's most brilliant atheists, Nothingness is the magical pixie dust that brought into existence all that there is, the something which exists, i.e. the universe, human beings, complex DNA, RNA etc. <BR/>And atheists call us irrational!<BR/><BR/>The incredibly vast and huge universe is still finite, and it had a beginning, as even admitted by Dr. Smith.<BR/><BR/>Something with a beginning requires something else independent of itself to cause it's existence. The late brilliant atheist and mathematician Bertrand Russell and the late existentialist atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre also acknowledged the law of causality and denied self causality. <BR/><BR/>All natural causes for the beginning of the universe are exhausted since all that exists materially is contained within our natural universe, which, again, Dr. Smith admits had a beginning. Hence the Cause must be super-natural and infinite, i.e. beyond the natural universe and Uncaused, for something finite to exist now there had to be a Something else to cause the finite something's existence. God is that transnatural Something else Who Himself is not caused, but is Uncaused. Something infinite has to exist for that finite something else to exist at all. <BR/><BR/>What was that about simple folk?<BR/> -R.WiesingerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-80221044652045683212008-11-23T17:19:00.000-07:002008-11-23T17:19:00.000-07:00As for "stopping being anonymous?" Absolutely. I w...As for "stopping being anonymous?" Absolutely. I will stop as soon as the death threats I have received were never made.<BR/><BR/>Some people don't particularly like it when you undermine their core beliefs with logic. Statists, in particular. As statists, their first reaction to anything that threatens their world view is "SMASH!" Especially when it comes to veterans, who were thoroughly trained in the Statist art of crushing, maiming, destroying and killing (under the pretense and guise of "protecting," of course.)<BR/><BR/>Truth poses a serious danger to falsehood. Falsehood's only weapon is violence, while truth's only weapon is convincing.<BR/><BR/>I think this might be one of the reasons Publius remained anonymous. <BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-19850268982552310472008-11-23T16:58:00.000-07:002008-11-23T16:58:00.000-07:00Neil, you've laid out what could be a multi-course...Neil, you've laid out what could be a multi-course dinner for discussion, and to my frustration I have time only to nibble at a few hors d'oeuvres.<BR/><BR/>My greatest frustration as a musician has been my inability to find a really distinctive voice. <BR/><BR/>Part of that was because my role models as an aspiring musician were Larry Carlton, Steve Lukather, Dennis Budimir, and the rotating "Smarty-Pants" string-slingers who played on Steely Dan albums. <BR/><BR/>I wanted to be a session musician, and actually did a little of that kind of work when I was in my early 20s. So I became a decent sight-reader and a very good mimic. <BR/><BR/>Asked on one occasion to describe my "style," I said something to the effect that in one of my typical solos, one could hear <I>this</I> bit I nicked from Lukather, and <I>that</I> bit I horked from, say, Gary Moore or Michael Schenker -- and that the ineptly performed interstitial between those two recited licks would be Will Grigg's distinctive contribution. <BR/><BR/>That being said, in my last band (a power trio), there would be moments of transcendent collaboration in which we each of us would create something uniquely his, and the product of our instinctive collaboration would be priceless, if tragically ephemeral. (For some reason, moments of that kind only happened when we were performing at the local bowling alley.:-))<BR/><BR/>I genuinely appreciate your recommendation of Mark Buchanan's book, which I intend to track down quite soon.William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-77336658008822922842008-11-23T16:38:00.000-07:002008-11-23T16:38:00.000-07:00Neil, Here's an idea that would reduce the number ...Neil, <BR/><BR/>Here's an idea that would reduce the number of police, atrocities committed by police, and generally decrease the odious nature of a coercively-funded police force. It's a revolutionary idea to some, unfortunately: let the title "crime" only be applied to physical actions that actually have a victim who is wronged through force, fraud or coercion. When you believe you have the right to punish victimless acts, or "violating the rights of society," (whatever that is,) you'll find that a certain type of person is drawn to enforcing such crimes. He is not a good kind of person. This kind of person loves exercising special, monopoly power over others simply because he <I>can</I> do so, and because he can do so with the approval of others, who are in awe of his noble acts of "protecting society" from dangerous people such as a pothead with a case of the terminal chuckles, someone who wants to manufacture his own alcohol, someone who wants to build a home without the blessing of the State, or someone who chooses to peacably carry a self-defense weapon without a state-issued permission slip. <BR/><BR/>One key question: is your proposed "national service program" voluntary, or is it forced upon people at gunpoint? <BR/><BR/><BR/>As for your statement about science having a tendency to "get things right . . ." You seem to be confusing two different sciences here. The physical sciences can be simply defined as the methodical act of discovering and describing physical phenomena. This is all very well. But, when you say science "gets things right," you are bringing in an entirely different field of science: ethics. Physical science tells us what we <I>can</I> do, and how we <I>can</I> achieve an end. It can never tell us what we <I>ought</I> to do. Not even sociology or psychology can unilaterally tell us what we <I>ought</I> to do. <BR/><BR/>"Right," when referring to human interactions, refers to the moral realm. Morality is not a physical entity. It is not comprised of a few synapses firing in a particular sequence. <BR/><BR/>As far as I can see, if there is no God, and there is no immaterial animating principle that makes every individual what it is, makes it responsible for its own actions, and makes it not any other thing, there is no reason for me to not do anything I want to anyone else, so long as I either A) have more power than the other physical entity, or B) do not get caught by any other physical entity. <BR/><BR/>Who is to say that I "should not" play Dr. Mengele and join a pair of kittens by their internal organs, then stomp them both soundly, and post the video on You Tube, if nobody can stop me? Who is to say that I "should not" play a game of toddler-skull croquet, so long as I never get caught? Outrageous proposals to any sane person, clearly. But in all reason, why <I>should</I> I <I>not</I> do these things, if through the wonders and blessings of science, I <I>can</I> do them? "Science be praised!"<BR/><BR/>Some of us simple people believe in an all-powerful entity that we call God, yes. We do not, however, believe in his existence because it is or is not provable by the physical sciences. We believe for the same reason we laugh at a joke: what makes a joke funny? I can juxtapose two contrary and simultaneously-held ideas all day long, and no one may laugh at it. But if I fail to zip up my fly, someone may laugh: not because they see and understand all the principles that underlie the notion of humor, but because they see it as funny. We believe in the existence of God because we believe in the existence of God. Like the same reason many people love, as Fulton Sheen wrote: "Just because." There are certainly reasons why one may love another person, but one doesn't need them, does one?<BR/><BR/>To me, the idea of morality without God is entirely laughable. As an aquaintance pointed out to me, atheists must believe, like Marx, that a man is nothing but a clump of matter that happens to manipulate other clumps of matter. If we're nothing but matter, morality does not exist. There is no "right" or "wrong," there is only "can" and "can not." In such a world, we have nobody to which we are ultimately accountable, even if our actions could be imputed to us. (Mere matter is simply not responsible for its actions!) We can steal, kill, rape, or give, save and preserve, and we'll all end up in the same place when we croak. In such a world, the moral value of an act is based upon what you and you alone value (and trifling details such as the possibility that another clump of matter might manipulate you out of existence if you try to manipulate it in a way that does not cause its synapses to fire in a in a manner that is pleasing to it.) <BR/><BR/>In a world of pure matter, what is this thing called "free will?" We are matter: we cannot choose anything, and hence, we cannot be responsible for anything. <BR/><BR/>But we all live in a world that has prisons and free society, condemnation and praise. It is impossible for an atheist to take his materialism to its full logical conclusions, and all of the ramifications thereof. So they live as though they really believe in the existence of the immaterial individuating animating principle (the soul,) free will and final judgment, all the while denying the existence of these things with mere words that they speak. <BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com