- ‘Nother reason to eat a nuts-n-berries diet. Or at least nuts, anyhow.
- Beaver steals gun. Chortle.
- One more v*te for shutting down Obamacare. This one from cybersecurity mavens.
- In the meantime, assuming you can buy insurance at all, maybe you can get it for free! It seems that the U.S. is developing a kind of ideal income level where you can a) live reasonably well while b) maximizing your tax-provided benefits. Millions more will surely aim for this welfare-state version of “success.” Cockapoo nation!
- But some proud traditionalists will not go happily into that EZ future.
- Anybody could have predicted that the so-called Consumer Finance Protection Bureau would end up as yet another spy agency. But who would have been cynical enough to think that would be among its main missions from the get-go? Uh. Well. Only people with a brain.
- Uh oh. The old assassination market idea gets new life in the age of TOR and bitcoin. Somehow, I don’t think this is going to go any better than it went for Jim Bell.
- Awwwwww … (H/T jc2k from comments)
Yes, I am that cynical.
Love the dog story. Made me smile.
We recently watched two French movies that made us smile, too. “Populaire” and “The Intouchables.”
Every so often we need a break from cynical dark dramas. We have so much of that in real life now. 😉
There’s another Claire column up over at the S.W.A.T. site. 🙂
Thanks, Tam! I’ll blog a link ASAP.
I don’t buy the cockapoo “strategy” at all.
Let’s look at Isaiah’s Job:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html
Is this the correct model for society? Yes, I think it is. What does the cockapoo strategy do for it? It takes the very people who you are depending on to build a new society, after the empire crashes, and turns them all into whores.
Imagine this Remnant is 5% of society. What do we gain by turning them into whores? The Empire crashes a little bit earlier than it would have otherwise. Is that tiny acceleration of the crash worth the moral corruption of those who would fix things after the crash? I hardly think so.
We only have control of ourselves. We should do what is right by our standards, rather than corrupting our standards down to the common low level – no matter what other peripheral benefit might come from that, and no matter what clever justification we can cobble together for doing that.
Imagine you are in a grocery store checkout line and you whip out your EBT card, explaining to those behind you that you don’t think there should be any such thing as an EBT card because it is harmful to liberty and to personal responsibility. How much credibility are you going to have?
Cockapoos are just people who rationalize bad behavior, and that’s all they are. The ideal is, take nothing from the state, and give nothing to it. The closer you are to that, the better – and you won’t have trouble looking at yourself in the mirror every morning.
Oh, on the assassination market thing, I think much of this can be avoided through the general adoption of Panarchy. No need to knock off politicians not in your own polity. However I would be surprised if some version of applying pressure to petty tyrants is not part of the picture. Something must serve to deter aggression between polities. Whether that deterrent is an assassination market, or something more traditional, is a question. Generally in the computer world it seems that if something can be done, it will be done (all the recently-revealed surveillance is evidence of this).
Paul — The cockapoo strategy isn’t the best and clearly isn’t for many freedomistas. In my book, it’s one for people who’ve been driven to extremes — who’ve been otherwise destroyed and defeated. By cops. By the taxman. By illness. It’s a last-ditch thing. And of course it can be a rationalization. It can also be the only way a beaten-down person has of fighting back.
That said, I do think that Obamacare is the latest and perhaps biggest force that’s going to push many formerly middle-class people into adopting a cockapoo strategy simply because it may seem to be the best way out of being used and abused. Here I’m talking about people who may never have had a Freedom Outlaw thought in their lives and who might never think of themselves as Outlaw Cockapoos, but who just realize they have a choice between being wrung out to pay for everybody else, or minimizing their own earnings to avoid such a fate, then taking advantage of the “perks” of being low-income.
Not sustainable, that. But as a short-term strategy in a society that’s consuming its own best people …
Oh, I see nothing at all wrong with minimizing taxable income. In fact the more that happens, the better. It’s the “taking advantage of perks” part that is wrong, even for those who are not freedom outlaws.
I see your point that people who have been devastated by the state need some recourse. But let’s not forget this is morally the same as stealing a car from an innocent third party because somebody stole yours. In “taking advantage” you are not just getting stolen loot from people who can afford it, but also from people just like you.
As Thomas Paine put it, “Public money ought to be touched with the most scrupulous consciousness of honour. It is not the produce of riches only, but of the hard earnings of labour and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery. Not a beggar passes, or perishes in the streets, whose mite is not in that mass.”
I am not actually a “property rights” absolutist, among other things because I don’t believe in rights at all. See http://strike-the-root.com/private-property-vs-your-stuff
However I think if you are starving and see vegetables in a garden, you should go get them yourself, and face the fact you are stealing, and potentially at least, face the person you are stealing from. Maybe after you offered to work for them! I am doubtful that becoming dependent on the state harms the state; seems to me it strengthens the state – even as it runs out of money. Let’s not forget that states exist in abysmally poor countries too.
Claire said, “Not sustainable, that. But as a short-term strategy in a society that’s consuming its own best people …”
I’d say the U.S. has always been consuming its own best people.
Beginning with the Whiskey Tax, consumption of people was a way to grab that which the fedgov had no right to, in order to sustain those who had no right to it.
I am currently re-reading “The Law” (Frederic Bastiat; http://mises.org/document/2731 )
and realize again that every word rings with modern application: there is nothing going on today that “The Law” doesn’t cover.
Bastiat addresses “legal plunder” as the key to the socialistic (welfare) state, and in fact it is legal plunder that places Cockapoos in their position, for “legal” theft originated — and continues — only from government and the situations its laws set up.
I have long thought the argument against Welfare didn’t carry forward far enough. If “taxes are theft”, then it is not welfare recipients who do the stealing. Everyone is a victim of the laws, at whatever level. The way to stop the welfare system is to stop “legal plunder”. Some (maybe many) recipients learn to like it, but that doesn’t negate the fact that government is the culprit, and only government — or rebellion — can stop it, as long as those laws are on the books, and as long as taxes are considered “legitimate.”
~~~
Paul – Actually those vegetable seeds were stolen and planted into that garden, so the original owner had little or no seeds with which to raise his own garden. The real thief is the garden owner (fedgov), not you or me or some other poor slob who is equally hungry. In fact the thief you mention may well be the original seed owner who now has no recourse but to “steal” back a portion of the fruits of his seeds in order to live.
(Re: your article on Property, I think you’ve nit-picking a little over the word. If something belongs to me, it’s still mine whether someone takes it or not. He has no “right” to it, and the law (or I) will chase him down to get it back.
With your definition, one could say that if a friend borrowed my bike, it is no longer mine until he returns it. It may not be in my possession to use, but it was with my blessing that he now uses the bike, and I am still the owner. If he doesn’t return it in an allotted time, I have the right to chase him down and “steal” it back, with or without the help of the law.
I think there is a difference between OWNING something and HOLDING or POSSESSING something — and the difference lies in the agreement between two or more people.)
[He has no “right” to it]
Rights don’t exist, so this statement is meaningless.
[the law (or I) will chase him down to get it back.]
The law doesn’t give a rat’s ass about us. You may successfully chase him down but may get sued in the government courts for assault. Good luck…
[I think there is a difference between OWNING something and HOLDING or POSSESSING something — and the difference lies in the agreement between two or more people.)]
The point I am trying to make is that there is little to no difference. Someone grabs your stuff, it ain’t yours any more. Lending out, same result – unless you have taken care who you lend to. Agreements work great and make life easier for everybody – until someone fudges on the agreement…
Do you pay taxes on your income? Well tell me, that money the government extorted from you, is it yours or is it gone? What do you think your chances are of getting it back?
That old saying, “Possession is 9/10 of the law,” or however it goes, is more accurate than most people realize. Remember those Greek bank accounts?