Sunday links

Actual support for “gun control” is so lacking that the Clinton campaign chose to fake a supportive editorial.
Of course, we know there is plenty of support for “gun control” — in the most insanely misguided way. Hate to see somebody legally carrying a firearm? Does his potential “violence” offend you? Just grab his gun and shoot him. (And hopefully go to prison for a very long time.)
Google, having left “don’t be evil” long in its past, has now breached the never-very-solid barrier of supposedly anonymized tracking. They’re tracking you by name wherever you go. On a strictly voluntary basis, of course. For now.
Two classic rants against TV. One of them musical. Even with “TV” having become a much more malleable thing, these still have something to say.
Kathy Jackson on why mothers should take their kids shooting. (H/T F.)
Mosquito eradication. Non-chemical. Courtesy of Marlon Brando.
Dogs give us this kind of loyalty (might be too sad for some to bear). Too many humans give them this in return (sad but with a happy ending).
But on the canine lighter side …

trying2b-amused October 23, 2016 1:01 pm

If I may be excused for contributing a link rather than commenting on one:

[snip]
In theory, politicians could offer liberty to their supporters. They could offer to cut back regulations, to end military aggression. But who is going to pay them for that? Again these are things that would benefit everyone, all of society. But the game of politics is not about benefitting all of society. And the widely accepted belief that it is is perhaps the most dangerous lie ever crafted.

In order for a seeker of liberty to win at this game, that person would have to compete with the campaign donations and other inducements made by military contractors, major pharmaceutical companies, oil companies – but these are all entities that have been made rich by virtue of government interventions and direct largesse. How can a liberty seeker hope to offer the same level of financial inducements to politicians as these people, when they are not also on the receiving end of the government slush?

This is the real reason that libertarians “don’t matter” in the political sphere. It’s not because they don’t vote. It’s because they don’t participate in the real game of politics – the interest-driven game that can never reward a player who wishes to dismantle the very engine of that game. People win at the game of politics by buying and selling political power over other people’s lives and resources. A player who wants to reduce that power will not find themselves rewarded within that game – they will find themselves spat out of it.

That’s why the political beasts are laughing at us. It’s not because we don’t vote – it’s because we don’t steal. And for these people – for people who never even question the morality of using state violence to get what they want – that is the biggest joke in the world.

This is why I don’t believe that it makes sense for a libertarian to vote. Voting is simply not a realm in which liberty wins. The obvious question then, from the person who wants me to vote, is: Why not do it anyway though? In case you’re wrong? What harm can it do?

Here’s the harm it does: By perpetuating the lie that voting can be an effective way of advancing liberty, it helps to direct people’s energy and focus away from efforts that actually do have the potential to advance liberty. And I don’t want to contribute to that.
[snip]

RTWT. (H/T LRC Blog)

5 Comments

pyrrhus October 23, 2016 9:23 am

Another good one…..http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/pentagon-hillary-should-be-arrested-leaking-nuclear-intelligence-during-debate
Jim B. October 23, 2016 11:13 am

I’m not surprised at the stealing the gun away and shoot him post, especially when someone makes a PSA about stealing guns:

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/video-advocates-kids-steal-parents-guns-firearms-school/
trying2b-amused October 23, 2016 1:01 pm

If I may be excused for contributing a link rather than commenting on one:

[snip]
In theory, politicians could offer liberty to their supporters. They could offer to cut back regulations, to end military aggression. But who is going to pay them for that? Again these are things that would benefit everyone, all of society. But the game of politics is not about benefitting all of society. And the widely accepted belief that it is is perhaps the most dangerous lie ever crafted.

In order for a seeker of liberty to win at this game, that person would have to compete with the campaign donations and other inducements made by military contractors, major pharmaceutical companies, oil companies – but these are all entities that have been made rich by virtue of government interventions and direct largesse. How can a liberty seeker hope to offer the same level of financial inducements to politicians as these people, when they are not also on the receiving end of the government slush?

This is the real reason that libertarians “don’t matter” in the political sphere. It’s not because they don’t vote. It’s because they don’t participate in the real game of politics – the interest-driven game that can never reward a player who wishes to dismantle the very engine of that game. People win at the game of politics by buying and selling political power over other people’s lives and resources. A player who wants to reduce that power will not find themselves rewarded within that game – they will find themselves spat out of it.

That’s why the political beasts are laughing at us. It’s not because we don’t vote – it’s because we don’t steal. And for these people – for people who never even question the morality of using state violence to get what they want – that is the biggest joke in the world.

This is why I don’t believe that it makes sense for a libertarian to vote. Voting is simply not a realm in which liberty wins. The obvious question then, from the person who wants me to vote, is: Why not do it anyway though? In case you’re wrong? What harm can it do?

Here’s the harm it does: By perpetuating the lie that voting can be an effective way of advancing liberty, it helps to direct people’s energy and focus away from efforts that actually do have the potential to advance liberty. And I don’t want to contribute to that.
[snip]

RTWT. (H/T LRC Blog)
Coyote Hubbard October 23, 2016 1:01 pm

The toddler/dog story is heartbreaking. RIP both of them.

Its hard to read things like this sometimes, but its life. I helped crowdfund a documentary on police shooting dogs, its working title was “Puppycide” but was released with the title “Of Dogs and Man”. It was finally completed and my funding level gives access to a digital version of the film, but I decided I cannot watch it.
Claire October 23, 2016 1:58 pm

Coyote Hubbard — I contributed to the same documentary, giving more than I could afford because it seemed so important. I was supposed to get a DVD, IIRC. Though I got the hoodie and the bandanna and a bunch of other stuff, I never received the DVD. And just as well; I also don’t believe I could ever watch it. I know it’s online, but I can’t look.