❝❝A modern liberal can range from what used to be called a "progressive" to socialist. Roughly speaking, a modern liberal is all for personal freedom but feels that economic freedom and opportunity should be controlled by government action so that everyone "benefits equally" in the name of "social justice." In it's more extreme forms, it can mean that good intentions and lofty goals are judged over results.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Pagan•Vigil FAQ

Tags: maxims ∙ modern liberal ∙ progressive ∙ socialist ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ government ∙ equality ∙ social justice

““Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.””

— Alexis de Tocqueville

Tags: Alexis de Tocqueville ∙ democracy ∙ sociaism ∙ equality ∙ restraint ∙ servitude

““I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.””

— The American's Creed as quoted in Embracing the American's Creed

❝❝Regarding the creed.

No.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments on Is #AOC-ward (aka Ocasio-Cortez) a mere puppet for sinister people?

So here is this marvelous piece of 1917 poetry, and I said no. Why?

It's the difference between the Dream and the actuality.

One topic I've been debating recently is the emergency powers of the President. If you accept that the President has the power to declare emergencies, it's not exactly “of the people, by the people, for the people.” It's literally what one man said, not subject to debate or dissent. Theoretically it can be revised by Congress, but in practice it never is.

It doesn't stop there. Some agencies have power to regulate the people and the states. While sometimes these powers are subject to Congressional review, usually these regulations have the power of law without actually being law. What's worse is that the agencies often have administrative courts with different requirements. It's outside the normal court system and not subject to the rules of law. These regulations do not come from the "consent of the governed."

America has not been “a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States” since at least the Civil War. Everything from education to Prohibition to the EPA has been forced on the states, often in direct violation of the wishes of the citizens of the states. There's very little way to opt out.

America was never meant to be a “a perfect Union, one and inseparable;”. The phrase comes from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, but somehow the creed left out one word that changes the meaning. We're not meant to have a perfect union, we're supposed to have a more perfect union. As in we haven't done it yet, it's a work in progress. We're still arguing over what that means and how we can do it.

And yes, that means that if people don't like it, they can leave it. Even whole states.

Those ideals of “freedom, equality, justice, and humanity” are mutually incompatible. Specifically, freedom and justice aren't about equality or humanity. For most of the 20th Century, the idea of equality was used to rein in exceptional and unusual people. They couldn't be allowed to challenge the status quo. I don't know what the ideals of humanity are, but I am pretty sure we don't agree.

Speaking of justice, there are unjust American laws. Mandatory minimum sentencing, civil forfeiture, eminent domain, vice laws, laws and regulations preventing the use of precious metals as legal tender, mandatory union dues, "free speech" zones, zoning laws, the list goes on and on.

Nobody, no person, no institution, and certainly no nation deserves love without reservation. If you do not question what your nation does, you have failed as a citizen. The Constitution is not perfect and certainly the law is not perfect. And lest we forget, this nation was founded on the biggest and most polite "screw you" in human history. You can't choose liberty unless you embrace the right to walk away.

That's it. That's why my response is a simple word.

No.

Tags: American's Creed ∙ United States ∙ of the people ∙ by the people ∙ for the people ∙ just powers ∙ consent of the governed ∙ freedom ∙ equality ∙ justice ∙ humanity ∙ Constitution ∙ Dream ∙ emergencies ∙ President ∙ Congress ∙ regulation ∙ more perfect union ∙ unjust

““If you cannot achieve equality of performance among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, how realistic is it to expect to achieve it across broader and deeper social divisions?””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ equality ∙ performance ∙ social divisions

Under what circumstances does the state or the people have the moral authority to compel someone to act against their beliefs?

Tags: kosher ∙ pork ∙ BBQ ∙ equality ∙ past wrongs ∙ equal rights ∙ granting privilege ∙ denying rights ∙ moral authority ∙ freedom ∙ Eric July ∙ discriminate ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ goverment

““The 2nd Amendment - Making more women equal than the entire feminist movement””

Tags: 2nd Amendment ∙ women ∙ feminist ∙ equality ∙ memes

❝❝My critique wasn't intended to capture the movement.

In the various moments however, I see one group excuse their violence and their racism because of their narrative. This one group gets a pass but others do not. That's certainly privilege and it hurts their case.

I've told people before. You want equality, I'll fight with you. You want privilege, I'll fight against you.

I can't take BLC BLM seriously when I read or hear the trash-talk some of the leadership directs at "whites." I'm not the only one. I'm against injustice, I don't think BLC BLM is.

You know the really ironic thing about this conversation? The motto of my political blog Pagan Vigil is "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black and white."

---

If group A gets something and groups B, C, and E are not allowed, that's a privilege. If things change and group B gets something and groups A, C, E, and H are not allowed, there is still privilege.

The definition of oppression keeps changing. Arguably things were worse for "blacks" in the 1920s after Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the civil service and the military. Not to mention all the Jim Crow laws that were still on the books. While there are issues today, they are no where near what they once were.

One of the biggest issues today is the prison population. This is usually one key argument about how the US is still a racist society. Before we can really look at that though, we should consider if there are some laws that in and of themselves might be unjust. Personally I think it's stupid to arrest people for being under the influence but not arresting people for being drunk. So if we take out all non-violent drug offenders, that reduces the prison population quite a bit. We're left with the violent offenders.

We know that a strong family, especially one with at least two parents, usually means the kids don't break the law. We also know that "black" inner city children in single mother households used to be about 7%, at one point that rose to well over 70% and is still a majority today. We know that this was made possible by well meaning government programs meant to provide. In other words, "the Man" paid single mothers not to get married and raise kids on their own. Yet any talk of reducing these benefits is immediately called racism. It's privilege, it promotes dependency, and yet it's seen as "compassionate." There's racism and oppression for you, but in popular opinion it's a "right." That doesn't mean that single mothers are evil or wrong. It just means that when a majority of households in a given population are single mothers, the kids (and especially the males) are much more likely to push the boundaries and get into trouble.

These aren't the only two things that put more "blacks" in prison, but they are two of the biggest. Yet instead, we hear how cops are racist. These are also two things that would take years, maybe decades to fix.

There are many other things too. Inner city public schools which are more and more like prisons. Public housing projects that displace neighborhoods and quickly become crime infested. Licensing laws that make it almost impossible for small household businesses to get started. These are real oppressions with absolutely devastating results, and yet we're arguing over who gets a slice of the pie. The oppressed demand action from the government and the institutions that are keeping them down. Star Parker does a much better job explaining this is her book Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It.

Maybe the pie isn't limited. And maybe the person on the street isn't the oppressor.

---

Peer review? Then the next question will be if the correct peers reviewed it. And that still doesn't answer the real question: Is Star Parker wrong with either her observations or her conclusions?

Look at what happened here. In one reply you've moved from Black Lives Matter to certain Black Lives Matter more than the ones who have not been politically approved. It's Orwell. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

What critical race theory doesn't tell you is the how and why of institutions, particularly those created to fight one cause or another.

I'm not going to assume the collective guilt. That's not my style, and that's not the way to fix racism.

---

Critical race theory isn't a part of sociology, it rejects much of sociology. It was designed as a political tool to silence dissent from an approved ideology.

I am not discounting peer review which can be a valuable tool. I just do not think that it should be the only tool, nor do I think that the only certain people should be allowed to do peer review.

I've run into abuse of the latter kind in third wave feminism "scholarship" where ideas aren't even considered for discussion unless the author has been approved.

Those are Star Parker's beliefs, she still has the right to write and talk about them. But she isn't hitting people if they disagree with her.

I was trying to find a quote from Thomas Sowell on critical race theory, but I can't seem to find it.

---

How widespread is critical race theory outside those who study it? Can it produce predictable models of human behavior? How well does it withstand analysis outside the discipline? These are some of the things that mark a science. At one point I was studying to be a Christian minister, that doesn't make Christianity true. These same things could be said about third wave feminism too. Even more in the case of third wave feminism, how well does it tolerate behavior that goes against what it teaches.

But the people in BLM who aren't hitting people aren't denouncing the people in BLM who are. And there have been pages and pages written about how the leaders of BLM are justified in their racism against "whites" with no one calling them on it.

If BLM is going to denounce the neo-Nazis for being racist and violent, shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

---

We let generations be victims when they deserved to be heroes.

---

You seem to want understanding and validation for your sexuality. You won't get that from me. But if you want the right to make your own choices as long as you accept responsibility for those choices, count me in.

Which is more important?

I don't care about BLM's "cause," especially since I think it's only cover for their politics. I care about human rights and making sure everyone has them.

Which is more important?

---

See, I don't think there are as many oppressors as you do.

Nor do I think that people should take a back seat to talking and solving things because of their skin color, gender, creed, political affiliation, sexuality, gym membership, or the coffee they like. If there is a problem, let's fix it together and figure out who to blame afterwards.

---

I'm sorry, but this keeps getting more abstract.

What I saw was two groups using violence. One was condemned and the other was not. Both have highly racist members. Both have said and done some despicable things.

Why is the one group that has bigger numbers, much better funding, better political connections called the oppressed and therefore allowed violence without comment?

---

I don't approve of violence, particularly against bystanders. I said that in the original article.

But if you are going to overlook the violence of one group because they are oppressed, those same standards apply even more against the neo-Nazis. BLM is less oppressed by almost every measure you can name.

You keep excusing BLM and antifa's behavior. I don't. Not because I support the neo-Nazis, but because any excuse for violence is wrong. The fact that many BLM leaders are actively and openly racist and that BLM is constantly involved in violence even without neo-Nazis is enough to tell me that BLM is just another gang demanding tribute. Just as people were wrong to support the KKK in it's heyday, people are wrong to support BLM today.

---

I'm saying that by the standards that you yourself used, the neo-Nazis are more oppressed than BLM is. Do I agree? No. Do I think that the racism and violence of the neo-Nazis is despicable? Yes. Do I think that the racism and violence of BLM is despicable? Yes.

BLM shouldn't get a free pass. Excusing behavior usually encourages more bad behavior.

In this specific case, I think BLM and antifa came spoiling for a fight and they want moral justification.

---

Pardon, this conversation was never about white privilege.

It was never about me denying that people are oppressed. It was never about me, period. What we have is two groups that have used violence and racism. Violence and racism are terrible things.

One group gets excused and the other does not.

Yet the bigger group, the better funded group, the group with the better political connections, the group with academic support, blames the other for all the violence and racism **People deliberately excuse them from the consequences.** They get what they want with minimal costs. This leads to further bad behavior. Which is then excused.

I've pointed out that it was good intentions of the FedGov that has kept people trapped in poverty and crime. I can't and won't be responsible for something that happened before I was born. As a libertarian, I won't take responsibility for government failure. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, that's the history that I can do something about.

It's not about me. It's about the behavior I've seen and experienced.

There's a story about how after the assassination of MLK, Jesse Jackson came out waving a bloody shirt. The shirt didn't belong to Dr. King, it couldn't have given the timing. Yet there was Jackson, waving the shirt, accusing everyone in sight. Because even if they had nothing to do with the shooting, they should have done something. Even if it wasn't possible, they should have done something, faster, louder.

Jackson was aiming to be the new face of civil rights, and unfortunately he mostly succeeded. He turned it into an extortion racket in the 1970s and 1980s. If Jackson said that company X was racially insensitive, the company paid him off and he said the company had mended their ways.

That's how I see BLM, only with more thugs.

In Shelby Steele's White Guilt, he argues that the real problem is not racial oppression but white guilt. There are many people who have gotten power and money exploiting that guilt. I won't be a party to it.

You seem like a nice enough person. You and I are not going to agree on this issue. We can't even agree on what the issue is. I do think your heart is in the right place.❞❞

Tags: equality ∙ privilege ∙ fIght ∙ BLM movement ∙ oppression ∙ Jim Crow ∙ prison population ∙ family ∙ Inner city ∙ single mother households ∙ public housing ∙ license ∙ peer review ∙ critical race theory ∙ George Orwell ∙ sociology ∙ collective guilt ∙ Star Parker ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ sexuality ∙ violence ∙ Antifa ∙ white privilege ∙ Jesse Jackson ∙ Shelby Steele

❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.

Assume for a moment that you ran a bookstore. Should you be required by law to carry the Bible even though you were not Christian and did not believe Christianity was a valid faith? What if someone complained because you didn't have it?

Should a vegan restaurant be required to sell pulled pork BBQ?

Should a health food store be required to sell pipe tobacco?

---

Except we know that government does mandate that some products and services be sold or provided.

Let's take another example or two, shall we?

Imagine you are a lawyer or accountant. You know a specific businessman is crooked and can't be trusted. Should you be required to provided services?

Imagine you are an employer. Should you be required to verify the immigration status of each of your employees?

Most importantly, why should prior marginalization get a higher priority when it comes to the rule of law? Doesn't that lead to abuse of it's own when the formerly victimized class games the system?

---

Ah, so you are going to stick to "class of people." That's the problem. People aren't their labels. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Someone doesn't have higher moral authority because their group has been marginalized in the past.

And just in case you hadn't noticed, "American identity politics" is all about oppressing everyone else. All of which is predicated on the guilt of the former oppressor.

---

Black Lives Matter. All too ready to go after "white" cops, but doesn't want to address the problem of "black on black" crime. Nor does it want to address the major underlying problem, single parent families. Something that was encouraged by government, effectively relegating inner city families to poverty. Nor do they accept any criticism of their movement.

Much of third and fourth wave feminism. Apparently feminism is no longer about equality, it's about forcing men to sit down and shut up. And if a man complains, he's accused of rape.

The recent kerfuffle over the "redesigned" rainbow flag that put black and brown stripes at the top so that "people of color" had "representation." Literally "my victimhood is more important than your victimhood."

Identity politics is built on a carefully maintained hierarchy of victimhood. You're not allowed to speak unless you rank high enough with your victimhood or have demonstrated sufficient "compassion," usually by drawing attention to the "problem." But never actually solving anything.

And you are not allowed to question the victimhood.

---

Stop.

Step back. You are excusing their behavior.

Look at what has been done, not at the justifications.

Look at what is allowed within the groups.

Your enabling is just one example of what has locked people into their victimhood.

---

What you've given is excuses why people can't be held accountable.

Black Lives Matter is pushing a narrative that all police interactions with minorities but especially with "blacks" are racist. That's not true. And as I said, they overlook "black" on "black" crime that does not fit with the narrative.

It's victimhood I don't like, especially when perpetuated by bad government policy and "community outreach" that exploits the victims by keeping them victims.

---

And the courts were wrong.

Not because interracial marriages were wrong (they aren't). But because government can't be trusted to make individual moral decisions for you.

If you didn't choose your morality and if you do not commit to your morality, is it really yours?

Or did it just get sacrificed for the greater good?

---

Remember, most of the complaints against the current President are because he is doing the wrong moral things. Or at least, according to some people. Such as pulling out of the Paris accord.

Frankly there are people I want to discriminate against. There are evangelical Christians I want nothing to do with. There are radical feminists that I also don't want anything to do with. My list also includes some of the climate alarmists, the man-boy love crowd, anyone associated with a child beauty pageant, the extra-devout followers of Silver Ravenwolf, pretty much any organized political party, and a few dozen others.

Should government protect those people from my discrimination?

---

Actually we don't know that pulling out of the Paris accord is dangerous for the planet.

Here's what we do know. The "debate" about climate change has been heavily weighed on one side. A recent study has some of the most prominent climate alarmists admitting that the predictions didn't match the reality. President Obama committed the US, but the G20 and Obama didn't call it a treaty so it wouldn't have to go to the US Senate for approval. These aren't exactly moral actions.

Commerce is based on voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults. There's no “public service” about it. A company improves it's product or service (and lowers the price) because it wants to keep business from the competition. The "moral good" is based on pure greed. Nothing government demands from a business won't impose greater costs on the customer. Government relies on force. When government acts against people, it distorts the economy and morality.

It's not about public service, and commerce shouldn't answer to corrupt politicos.

---

The data was fudged. The people who fudged it knew it. The people who sought to make it a political issue beyond the control of any single government knew it.

If it's not about "saving the planet," then you have to ask what it is about. Especially when there is an everchanging deadline and No One Is Allowed To Question the failed predictions.

The entire movement is built on computer models, not science. I can't emphasize that enough. Models, not science. If the models have bad assumptions and/or if the data has been changed, the models aren't accurate.

But, "the science is settled." So you aren't allowed to dissent. You wouldn't accept that from a Creationist, why accept it from people who benefit financially and politically from forcing their agenda?

---

That wasn't what I said.

The models haven't been accurate in more than a dozen years. Even before that, the models had to be "goosed" to show a link between the past and the present.

I've said before that I can create a spreadsheet that makes me a millionaire in a week. That doesn't mean that the spreadsheet is accurate. And it sure doesn't mean I should wave cash around.

If the model isn't accurate, if we know it's not accurate, and if the people pushing the model hardest know that it's not accurate, don't you think it's time to ask why we should use the model?

---

No, that is what you have been told that the model is.

I strongly urge you to take a closer look. And I would remind you that there is no science in history that has ever been considered holy writ and beyond criticism.

For example, if I wanted to know the average global temperature right now this very minute, I'd have to accept that most land based measuring stations are in developed areas, many in highly urban areas that influence the readings. Satillite measurements are better, but don't go back further than about sixty years. And most of the ocean is a mystery below a mile deep.

So what exactly is the global average temperature?

---

I'm not shy about it. I don't approve of their life choices. I especially don't approve when *insert group name here* demands that it is not enough for to acknowledge their words and actions, it must be celebrated as the only accepted truth.

I don't want them on the ballot. I don't want to do business with them. I don't want them in my town.

And I think they are corrupting society.

Again, should government protect them from my discrimination?

---

I may not be a pure libertarian when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, but I don't usually initiate force. It's sloppy and takes too much energy.

“How many NAMBLA neighbors do you have, anyway?”

One.

Once.

---

I've been a corporate VP and I've run my own business.

Can you point to the spot in the Constitution where it defines the powers of the Federal government to control who I can and can't do business with? How about the spot where it defines that I must do business with everyone who wants to do business with me? Because under the Tenth Amendment, there isn't one.

If government isn't defending my ability to choose as long as I accept the consequences, then government has failed.

Even if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

Especially if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

If I am not free to discriminate as I choose, then government is discriminating against me. And that is what we see now. Some choices are more equal than others.

---

Not really.

That clause is the most abused in the Constitution, largely because it does not place significant restrictions on the Federal government. By some interpretations, the government can do what it wants when it wants and despite what people want. When you consider that everything from FDA approval to requiring transgender bathrooms is shoved through that loophole, it's a wonder that there is anything left of the rest of the Constitution.

Even in your flawed interpretation, public accommodation only applies in certain cases. Some are more victimized than others, remember?

---

Volumes have also been written against it. For generations in fact, right back to to the Anti-Federalist Papers

And then there is always the practical common sense approach. Here's the clause straight from Article 1 Section 8.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

I can tell you know many Diné, Hopi, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache who think that "Great White Father speaks with forked tongue." Just look at what the Interior Department did when it came to mineral rights.

You've tried to tell me what the consensus says, but you haven't disputed my conclusions. The commerce clause has been used to expand Federal power far beyond the scope of the rest of the Constitution. The only other comparable Federal power grab in American history has been the USA PATRIOT Act and the open-ended declaration of hostilities that happened after 9-11.

---

Or we could just stop handing out government grants and do something radically different like lower taxes, reduce government spending, and let people decide what to do with their own money.

---

Church playgrounds aren't national religious issues unless government is funding them.

The First Amendment is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Neither help nor hinder. It's the only way to win this particular battle. Otherwise you have things like a Faith Based Initiative (for certain faiths approved by law) and school prayer.

---

I think we do. And it's right there in the First Amendment.

Don't.

If there is one thing worse than a politico wrapping themselves in the flag, it's a politico standing on religion wrapping themselves in a flag.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ grants ∙ religion ∙ business ∙ bookstore ∙ Bible ∙ vegan ∙ pulled pork BBQ ∙ health food store ∙ pipe tobacco ∙ government mandate ∙ immigration ∙ marginalization ∙ rule of law ∙ moral authority ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ third wave feminism ∙ fourth wave feminism ∙ equality ∙ rape ∙ rainbow flag ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ identity politics ∙ compassion ∙ interracial marriages ∙ moral decisions ∙ greater good ∙ Paris accord ∙ Christians ∙ RadFem ∙ climate alarmist ∙ man-boy love ∙ beauty pageant ∙ Silver Ravenwolf ∙ discrimination ∙ G20 ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Senate ∙ commerce ∙ commerce clause ∙ improves ∙ competition ∙ voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults ∙ computer models ∙ global temperature ∙ climate change ∙ Zero Agression Principle ∙ NAMBLA ∙ neighbors