NeoNote — Wiretapping
❝❝To me, the interesting thing is that most of the mainstream media is willing to ignore things like this so long as it's a Democrat doing it to a Republican.❞❞Read More...
Truth, liberty and the rule of law
Saturday - 19Jan2019 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Liberty
❝❝I honor truth, liberty, and the rule of law in that order.❞❞
NeoNotes — government requires
❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
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.❞❞
from crux № 6 — Homosexuality does NOT equal pedophilia
Monday - 26Jun2017 Filed in: Morality & Modern Life&Politics
There was nothing except comments from readers like you to link that to pedophilia or homosexuality.
To me, it's immoral and perverse that you've taken it on yourself to pass judgement when there is nothing to show that these people did the things you say that you oppose.
Would you accept them passing judgement on you?
Ah, I see.
Let me look this over. I'm meeting someone for coffee in a bit, and I may not get back to the computer until this afternoon.
One quick thing though, if you don't mind.
Going by the bit you quoted,
86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual
Doesn't that tie into what I said above about using homosexuality as an excuse?
Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia, any more than deer hunting equals school shooting sprees. These are different behaviors, one does not indicate the other. Just because you don't approve of lesbians or pedophiles doesn't mean they are one and the same. Just as not every straight man is a rapist, or every Republican racist.
That doesn't mean that there aren't child molesters using homosexuality as an excuse.
I'll stand with you against sex with kids. But until and unless you can show that every homosexual (or even most homosexuals) target kids, I'll tell you that lumping all gays in with the child molesters is wrong.
Should I tell you the things I have seen passed off as the Republican agenda or the Christian agenda?
Do you have any idea the things that are regularly attributed to these groups? The hateful accusations that always seem to end with the downfall of freedom and the enslavement of humanity?
I will tell you what I've told the accusers in other forums.
Show me where everyone or even a simple majority has signed off on this agenda, and I'll look at your accusations again.
p.s. It was done better in The Protocols of Zion. And I didn't believe that one for an instant.
"No one is claiming every person with a homosexual problem target kids. Many target adults for sexual harassment, inappropriate behavior, disease spreading, domestic violence, porn, prostitution and murder."
One paragraph and you accuse all homosexuals of Horrors Too Terrible To Mention™. According to you if they don't target kids, they do something else wrong to other people because that is what homosexuals do. If someone can't see it, that someone must dig just a little harder because something ghastly will surely turn up. And if that doesn't work, why, you'll invent something.
There is still not much point in talking to you about it, is there?
You really do like to overcomplicate things.
Are there pedophiles who are not homosexual?
Yes.
Are there homosexuals who are not pedophiles?
Yes.
Therefore, homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.
Now, shall we discuss your obsessions?
It's not all "queers."
Any more than the exploits of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy make all men serial killers.
The individual is guilty, not the group.
A very wise man said "You can't childproof the world. The best you can do is world proof your children."
No, it doesn't.
First, lesbians aren't male and aren't banging boys.
Second, most homosexual men aren't banging boys either.
No, not really.
For example, if I were to point out (again) that homosexuality does not mean pedophilia, several folks here would chime in that I was all for sex with children.
In another place, if I were to disagree (again) with the notion that Christians should be locked away on general principle, several folks there would chime in that I was all for religious oppression.
The biggest and hardest lesson that I've had to learn is that no one group has THE answer, and no group that says it has THE answer can be fully trusted.
You know, people keep acting as if there were some sort of golden age where adults didn't sexually molest children.
Guess what? It happened twenty years ago, it happened forty years ago, it happened sixty years ago, and it happened eighty years ago.
It is not something new, not some sign of the times, not some terrible symptom of a philosophy you do not agree with.
Now, you can spend time lamenting for a time that never was, denouncing all life paths you don't follow, or you can do something today.
If you want to denounce libertarianism for "enabling" behavior you don't like, how is that different from the progressives denouncing conservatives for behavior they don't like?
That's not the question and you know it.
Look, it's very simple. I stand for the rights of the individual. He's not guilty because of skin color, sexual preference, religious choice, or net worth.
A person is guilty because of what he has done.
Not because a given label has this "tendency" or because the "common wisdom" says that "his kind" does that sort of thing. That's what progressives do. They do proclaim guilt based on skin color, sexual preference, religious choice, and net worth.
And yet we still have innocent people accused of crimes because you don't approve of their life style.
It's not because they have committed a crime, it's because you think there is an outside chance that they may.
You seem to think I am defending homosexuality. I'm not.
I'm taking a stand against slander. Well, technically in this case it's libel. Let's settle for defamation.
Prove that every homosexual is a pedophile. Prove that every pedophile is a homosexual.
If you can't do that, then the rule of law has no meaning.
It's not moral equivalence.
It's a matter of injustice to claim people are guilty before they've committed a crime just because of a label.
Innocent until proven guilty.
If you can't show that every gay is a pedophile, then you have no authority to treat them as if they were guilty.
Anymore than the RadFems have to the authority to treat every man as a rapist.
The percentages don't matter.
All that matters here is that someone can be gay without being a pedophile and someone can be a pedophile without being a gay.
That means that homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. People can be one or the other but not both.
ETA: That last sentence is missing a word. It should be
"People can be one or the other but not necessarily both."
Sometimes my fingers don't work. Sorry.
Again, if there are homosexuals who are not pedophiles and pedophiles who are not homosexuals, that's beside the point.
Do all Baptists eat chicken? Are there non-Baptists who eat chicken? Is chicken uniquely Baptist?
That's the same silly game that you're playing.
You don't like homosexuals. I understand that. But if you "associate" them with a crime BECAUSE they are homosexual, you do no honor to yourself or your cause.
I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
NeoNotes — Deserved to be heroes
For length reasons, this entry appears on it's own page.
“We let generations be victims when they deserved to be heroes.”
Read More...Grow a lot faster
Tuesday - 08Nov2016 Filed in: Headlines
Memo To The Next President: We Can Grow A Lot Faster
❝❝The idea that there is some kind of inevitable decline in productivity, he says, is nonsense: "Experience and formal analysis tell us clearly that innovation and productivity happen where there is rule of law, simple and predictable regulation, property rights, reasonable taxation, an open and competitive economy, and decent public infrastructure," Cochrane wrote recently. "These politicians do have ample control over, and ample opportunity to screw up."
Presidents, working with Congress, can have an enormous impact on the things that matter.
So what matters? A kind of consensus is emerging among some economists that significant barriers to growth exist — and that they can be swept away. Doing so could push the long-term growth path back above 3% -- creating millions of new jobs and higher incomes at the same time.❞❞