I cleaned out comment spam targeted mainly at the Who Owns You post and next thing you know I see the question, presented as the bottom line of political philosophy, in a book I’m reading. By Dawn’s Early Light has turned out to be fantastic. I did put it down briefly to finish something else, at a point where I couldn’t fathom how things could ever improve for the POV character, but that turned out to be just as the adventure was about to explode. At around 80% through, I’m looking forward to the sequel that has yet to be published. For what it’s worth, the character’s offhand answer to that question was nobody, but that’s close enough to the same as you do, you own yourself.
2016? Really? That was the last post? Wow!
I missed so much, not blogging politics and such here in that time. I’m only here today because the places got swamped with comment spam all of a sudden. I meant to blog the entire runup to the 2016 election, which of course was quite a ride. I didn’t start out supporting Trump. I wasn’t a rabid Never like some who completely lost their moral compass over what they perceived as an icky demeanor. I didn’t start out supporting or in favor of him, however, going more with people who did seem more presidential while also being likely to pursue decent policies. Never Hillary? Absolutely! He year was 2008 and we, especially the spouse, perceived her then as having reasonable potential as president. Her corruption and crazy was no doubt there, but hadn’t been unleashed, and might have stayed in check had black not trumped female in a runoff of superficial factors. One might say we are where we are now because Obama got selected instead of her at that time. Stable Evil beat Crazy Neutral, or something along those lines.
I never expected Trump to be arguably the best president since Van Buren. Coolidge? Reagan? Take your pick if you don’t know enough to understand mine. Ironic that Van Buren had been the brains behind Jackson’s election, and Jackson was the Trump of the day. I believe an honest history decades hence would rank Trump in the best handful of presidents. Not one of those bizarre rankings by “historians” with agendas.
Then the crazy 2020 election, which was a wonderful culmination of years of preparation on the part of progressives. We are currently living in the relative end game of things that started in the 1800s with the aim of a takeover by progressives/socialists/communists/lovers of pure power at any price. This would have been happening anyway, regardless of any meddling or influence that may or may not have come from the CCP. Ditto for whether or not our tech overlords had existed on schedule. I could go on at length. Maybe in five years…
The kids have been coming home from elementary school talking about politics, mostly about how awful Donald Trump is. Apparently kids are picking this up from parents and taking the thoughts to school. We’ve had some discussions as a result, mostly involving them and their mother, but it has made me think more about how to introduce them to political philosphy. I’ve been disturbed to see young relatives turn out to be commies/fascists, or at least muddled and confused, when I might have expected them to learn better. The trouble is, that is what is taught at school, and especially at college.
This is not new knowledge or a new conclusion for me, but what it comes down to, and where I’d start with an explanation, is that all politics and related philosophy comes down to the question of who owns you. Who owns your life?
That makes everything one might agree to as an aspect of giving up rights to their life a matter of degree and kind, but to believe that any should be given up puts you on one side, and believing you own yourself and in not giving it up puts you on the other. The rest is shades of greater or lesser evil, at its lightest not apparently evil in the least.
This is a good way to explain property, since it’s an extension of yourself. It’s a good way to explain self-defense, since it’s inherent to being alive. It even gives a basis for explaining how governments arose and were assigned to do certain things for us as a group, and how that could easily lead to a government being “in charge, with force” rather than “charged with force.” Not helped by individuals not always being rational or acting in their own best interests. Not to mention there always being those who see their best interest in a place of power and disregard for the interests of others.
I believe it’s a bad idea to leave kids to pick up on things themselves, especially with those out there whose goal it is to instill wrong. Educational systems run by those who believe you don’t own yourself have been part of a long game to mold people to the desires of those who enjoy power. If you know better, you counteract that.
This seems about right. I had never thought about the possibility of Afghanistan and Iraq being a way to defuse the Pearl Harbor Switch as it might otherwise have applied to our friends (and Bush friends) the Saudis. And perhaps the Muslim world in general. I remember well all the people calling for us to nuke Mecca. Which would be a Bad Idea if religiocide were not already well in the works. In any event, it’s easy to see how people could perceive us as soft and peaceful to the point of being pushovers, but it takes little perception to realize not to flip the switch.
These people are pathetic. I can’t imagine anything worse than losing a child that way, but pursuing the suit was willfully stupid. Sales of weapons and ammunition are constitutionally protected, legal businesses. The sellers don’t kill people. The users of the products kill people. And rarely, at that. Better to go after the theater for obstructing the right of people to protect themselves.
They do have one good point. The dollar amount of damages for attorney fees is as absurd as their nuisance suit was in the first place. If the company actually paid that much – or owes that much – in attorney fees and associated court costs, then they should not be able to afford, or justify, turning around and donating that amount to groups like the NRA. Legal costs and legal costs are legal costs. If that’s not what the legal costs were, get real and only charge the silly plaintiffs the true amount. If those were the legal costs, perhaps that’s a law firm that ought to be ashamed of themselves for giving the industry a bad name.
I have become a fan of Carly, but Fiorina supported an individual mandate in 2013. Not the same mandate. A more sensible mandate. However, it is wrong either way. No matter what the NSA has and allowed Obama to use on Justice Roberts to get a decision that says otherwise, the mandate is unconstitutional.
I’m not convinced this destroys her chances utterly, and it’s going to be hard to do more than modify ObamaCare no matter who wins, but it certainly looks bad. You cannot, by definition, support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America if you support and pursue unconstitutional policies.
The problem may be a corporate background informing her views. The trouble with Republicans is that it’s OK if a corporation does it, the way a Democrat considers it good if the government does it, but then that extends to it being OK if the government does something of benefit to corporation(s). If you see an individual mandate as somehow benefiting business, especially big business, you are more likely to support it as a Republican. No principles need apply.
Perhaps it’s already time to bring back Rick Perry. He has the problem of invoking Jesus, but not to the extent of being a Christian theocrat as some Republicans might be.
When I started seeing “yes means yes” laws mentioned, it seemed funny to me. Why? Because my interpretation of a law of that name was “if someone says yes to sex, it means yes and you can’t go changing your mind later and accusing them of rape.” Because that would be false, whether you are a mattress dragging stunt hound or merely misguided.
Thus I was greatly surprised that it is affirmative consent. That is, absolutely unambiguous yes required each step of the way or it doesn’t count.
None of which changes the problem of his word versus hers, and his word doesn’t really count unless there is concrete evidence. So it really means you need to get consent on paper and/or tape, or to avoid the whole thing entirely, or to stick to partners who are rational humans.
Which would be the case without a law, these days. Especially on college campuses, where the Constitution need not apply.
So you’ve got this manmade global warming thing that not only hasn’t remotely been proven, but arguably the opposite. At minimum, the “evidence” has been subject to fraud or error. It’s more a money game than anything, for “scientists” pursuing it, and a power game for politicians and organizations pursuing it. Powerful motivators, those. Not like truth and accuracy for their own sake, and the sake of a clear conscience.
Now we have someone proposing to use RICO to bludgeon scientists who disagree! Seriously? Are you sure we aren’t living in a Randian dystopia, complete with a State Science Institute run amok?