Ignore all the hyperbole over Elon trying ONE small hit from Joe’s tobacco/marijuana hybrid joint, two hours into the interview, which did not appear to change his mental state at all. Watch this utterly fascinating conversation for yourself. I promise the time will not be wasted.
I can’t imagine anyone better qualified to explore Musk’s remarkable mind. Many truly thought provoking discussions on very diverse subjects arise. Enjoy! :) ◄Daveâ–º
On a recent comment, Jim offered a link to David Friedman’s discussion of his “Hard Problem,” regarding national defense in a stateless society. It reminded me of Harry Browne’s elegant solution 45 years ago, in “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.” Longtime readers will recall that this is my favorite book, which I have reread at least once a year since 1979, just to keep me grounded. Anyone think they can refute Harry?:
National Defense
What about national defense? Isn’t the nation safe from foreign enemies only because of the government?
What is a nation? In common usage, a nation is considered to be a geographical area under the jurisdiction of a single government that isn’t a subdivision of a larger government. The government assumes responsibility for the defense of the geographical area and makes all decisions regarding armed conflict with outsiders.
If there were no government, there’d be no nation. And if there were no nation, there’d be nothing to defend.
If that sounds too simple, think about it. No aggressor conquers a nation by overcoming every single inhabitant and occupying every part of the geographical area. It would be far too expensive to do so.
Instead, the aggressor applies force against the country until the government of that nation surrenders. Then the aggressor takes over the existing governmental machinery to enforce the occupation. If no such machinery existed, how could it enforce the occupation?
Hitler couldn’t have conquered Europe without the help provided by the governments of the occupied nations. Would he have sent every one of his Nazis into Norway to police all the Norwegians? If he had, who would have been left at home to police the Germans?
That doesn’t mean that aggression would stop if there were no governments. But the aggression would be no more formidable than the examples of crime we’ve already covered.
Hydrogen bombs and other modern tools of war are effective only when they can be used to pressure governments. Enemy rulers have nothing to gain by destroying U.S. property and people — except as a means of pressuring the government to surrender. Otherwise, the more they destroy, the less value to them in conquering the nation.
If there were no federal government in the U.S., the Communists would have to conquer fifty different state governments — which would be far more difficult. But what if there were no state governments? Then they’d have to conquer every town separately.
But what if there were no town governments — no governments at all? Then they’d have to make over 200 million separate conquests — and use millions of their own policemen to set up new governments.
Obviously the answer to the threat of communism (or any other enemy) is not a stronger government to defend us but just the opposite. We’d be far safer if there were no government to conquer.
It’s surprising how many “national issues,†problems that “cry out†for government intervention, wouldn’t even exist if there were no governments.
The dictators of the world have always operated in countries where there was a strong respect for government. The prevailing European awe of the state has produced an endless number of tyrants, wars, and low standards of living.
And now that generations of Americans have been taught that governments are vital to their well-being, present-day Americans are afflicted with all the problems that invariably result from big government.
Such a trend has developed over many lifetimes; it won’t be reversed within ours. Governments grow naturally because individuals see them as ways of increasing their rewards at lower expense. It’s an over simplification to say that people want “something for nothing.†All people want to obtain as much as possible for as little effort as possible; that’s why labor-saving devices are valuable.
Unfortunately, however, government isn’t the labor-saving device it appears to be. It always gives back less than it takes. But because it does appear to be a giver of good things, its appeal is almost universal and there isn’t much likelihood that the trend will be reversed.
Browne, Harry. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (Kindle Locations 1640-1678). Kindle Edition.
It would appear to be the season for redefining who we are, how we think, and how we became us. My lifelong journey from academic liberal, to patriotic authoritarian, to selfish libertarian, to now being an avowed stateless anarchist, is fairly well documented on this blog. What is most interesting to me is that although I literally spent years studying and pondering the subject before making that last leap, few seem to take my decision seriously. At times it is trivialized and/or ridiculed hereabouts. I reckon it is the connotation most have for the word ‘anarchy.’ To me it means stateless — without rulers — not without order. Perhaps it is time to republish my 2 ½-year-old essay, to try to elucidate my thinking once more:
Liberty or the State
Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.
It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.
What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.
For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”
Our old friend Pat Condell has been experiencing too much grief with YouTube’s SJW censors blocking his videos. He has started new channels on Bitchute and elsewhere. This is to experiment with embedding a Bitchute video here:
It required installing an iframe plugin; but it seems to work, although I would prefer less space between it and the text.
BTW: Personally, I think rapists should be “cured” before being deported. Here is a handy tool I used to own when I was a cattle rancher, which worked like a charm for making steers out of bull calves. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
…which I found rather riveting — probably, because I found myself in such agreement with most of his philosophy and advice. When you have an hour you are willing to invest in something besides politics, I highly recommend watching it. Crank up all the volume you can get; but I am sure he will sort out the technical issues for future broadcasts, to which I am very much looking forward. Enjoy… 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
Rather good-naturedly, an articulate thinker utterly destroys a femanazi with a serious hearing disability. She spends half the debate experiencing cognitive dissonance. One almost feels compassion for the mental midget the professor is shamelessly toying with. If you are unfamiliar with Jordan Peterson, he is well worth checking out. ◄Dave►
The subject of Artificial Intelligence and the future of mankind arose in discussions on the previous post. Here is an excellent TED talk on subject, by Sam Harris last year:
…pretty sobering and thought provoking, no? The analogy comparing ourselves to ants works rather well. His last line about constructing a new god was incredibly profound! Any discussion?
PS: Especially for Chris… be paying close attention to the visual at 4:08; but try not to lose your train of thought. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º
On the previous thread, I mentioned to Steel that I had recently acquired an Amazon Echo device, and was having great fun playing with Alexa. He replied with this apropos cartoon:
LOL… Sure, before ordering it, I experienced the old kneejerk paranoia about my privacy. Yet, before I could ask Alexa to spell antidisestablishmentarianism (she did!) or play some Beach Boys, the only time I ever spoke here in my hermitage was to my little dog, or the occasional rare telephone call. I have always assumed that my telephone conversations are being recorded somewhere anyway. Even if I never turned the microphone off, or unplugged her, and Alexa was actually recording every sound here 24/7, those tasked to search through the recordings for my transgressions would be bored to death, unless they shared my nostalgia for the popular music of my youth, and enjoyed the sound of rain, a babbling brook, or ocean waves playing while I am sleeping. 😊
Until one experiences it for themselves, it can be hard to imagine the sense of relief derived from escaping the stultifying paranoia of Big Brother, which is just another weapon in the oligarchs’ tool chest, for maintaining their dualistic society. The ubiquitous ‘us against them’ mindset is designed to keep the sheeple at each other’s throats, rather than their own. All that is required to reacquire personal freedom, is to opt out of their cruel game, as an individual refusing to choose sides. If one concludes he has no need of a ruler, or even a political leader, then it becomes ludicrous to consider sanctioning their authority, by participating in the obnoxious process of choosing one.
Several months ago, it occurred to me that, now in my dotage, I am no longer a threat to the powers that be. If they have nothing to fear from me, I see little point in fearing them. Frankly, at my age, were they to haul me off to prison as a subversive, it would represent a marked improvement in my austere lifestyle. Air conditioning; pest control; three hot meals a day; regular hot showers; laundry service; free medical attention; gym; library; cable TV; internet; armed guards 24/7 to protect an old man from terrorists, gangs, flash mobs, muggers, and lonely widows. No wonder so many codgers who are released, soon deliberately re-offend to get back inside, and resume the carefree lifestyle to which they had become accustomed. It sure sounds more appealing than a retirement home, populated predominantly with addled dementia patients, no?  😉
Since this epiphany, I switched back to using Google as my search engine, and have found I much prefer Google Chrome to Firefox for several reasons, so it is now my default browser. I even stay logged into it and YouTube, with my real identity. I notice that the ad blocking extensions do such a good job, that I have not experienced any of the targeted advertising that is supposed to be so off-putting about allowing Google to collect data on my surfing habits. I do not even experience advertising on YouTube, and appreciate the way it tracks my tastes to offer new clips that might interest me. So, with nothing to hide, what exactly have I lost by relinquishing my privacy? â—„Daveâ–º
Using copy/paste, I went through the whole list and was stunned! I’ve turned them into links, to make it easy to try it for yourself.
By the time I got through ‘White American Inventors,’ I figured the search algorithm must be just ignoring the term ‘white,’ so I changed it to ‘Black American Inventors.’ You guessed it – huge difference!
The final one is pretty damn specific. Can anyone explain to me why the results are so absurd?
One of the 45 replies to the thread nailed it:
It’s like watching the ads on TV here in the UK; if you were an alien watching those transmissions, you would be absolutely convinced that the majority of human families consisted of a black guy, a white woman, and asian kids.
It is truly fortuitous that I no longer care a whit about the future of Western civilization, or even mankind itself for that matter. If the Jihadists or North Koreans don’t manage to destroy the internet first, the upcoming Ice Age should cure such utter nonsense rather nicely. ;) ◄Daveâ–º
This mashup isn’t from conspiracy theorists; it’s from the NYT:
Listen carefully to the audio. Notice how much of the time the shooter is firing single shots, or not at all. Note: they counted a couple of short consecutive bursts individually, which I had counted together when I found only ten episodes of automatic fire, approximately once a minute.
Their count of 900 rounds fired at the crowd comports with my own estimate of 1000 rounds or less. In any case, 900/12=75. The only way to fire an average of 75 rounds per burst with an AR-15, would be with drum type magazines. I have heard nothing regarding such magazines being at the crime scene, and the leaked photos do not show any.
I still think that many of the sustained ~100 round bursts were probably from belt-fed weapons, such as the M-249. This would also make a lot more sense out of the time and effort expended to set up tripod tables. Although designated a ‘light machine gun,’ which can be shoulder or hip fired, the M-249 still weighs over twice that of a M-16. Then again, I suppose firing 1100 rounds (counting the 200 fired through the door) offhand with either weapon, would be a bit daunting for a pudgy 61-year-old besotted gambler. ◄Daveâ–º
Step 3:Â Buy a pant suit wherever-the-hell Hillary Clinton shops.
Step 4:Â Smile like you just smoked a doobie and executed a close relative.
Step 5:Â Nailed it!
—
Wow… I was able to copy and paste Scott’s entire post, pictures and all, over here in one simple operation! WordPress is getting effortless to use! 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
Uh oh… We have been musing over the mysterious Vegas massacre a bit hereabouts; but I have deliberately avoided chasing the various conspiracy theories, involving multiple shooters. I had assumed that all of the reports of more than one gunman were the result of confusing echos. That just ended:
Politics managed to sneak back into the previous thread’s ribald attempt to evade such. Chris eventually explained why he thinks of ‘liberals’ as left-wing ideologues, and how outdated it is of me to omit the qualifier ‘classic,’ while employing the term outside of the modern Left/Right political paradigm. While composing a response, it occurred to me that this discussion probably deserves its own post. So, I fleshed it out as a more fulsome reply. The block quotes below are from his referenced comment…
The dictionary is awash in Orwellian distortions of the English language. The venerable term ‘liberal,’ like ‘Liberty,’ is derived from ‘Liber,’ meaning ‘free’ in Latin. Liberal political philosophy was developed by 17th & 18th century philosophers during the enlightenment, known as the Age of Reason. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire, John Locke, et al, and all manner of Liberty loving, anti-tyranny, radicals like America’s founders, would have proudly worn the label ‘liberal’ in their day. Thus, I had always assumed that the Left had deliberately co-opted and inverted the term, as typical Orwellian Newspeak. That is, until I finally took the time to look up the word.
As is not at all unusual, the muddled definition I had been carrying in my head for decades, I had originally surmised from context and common usage, rather than consulting a dictionary. I suppose this is how and why language evolves over time. I would bet that most Americans have only a vague notion that ‘liberal’ means one or more of: left-wing; altruist; collectivist; socialist; communist; Marxist; atheist; Democrat; or simply the opposite of ‘conservative.’ The way it is used so often as an expletive by conservatives, suggests as much. Yet, none of those terms are used to define it, by any dictionary I have checked.
The term is used differently in American politics as I’m sure you know. Liberal and conservative now pretty much refer to attitude regarding adherence to the meaning and intent to the constitution and rule of law.
I reckon Chris’ attempt to define it by one’s attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, is much too parochial. That would only further confuse anyone trying to make sense of politics in other countries, which have conservative political parties called, “Liberal.â€
Currently, the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is simply: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.†I really like the simplicity of that, and it describes me.
The Free dictionary offers: “Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.†That sure doesn’t sound tyrannical to me; quite the opposite.
My thesaurus suggests as synonyms for liberal: open-minded; broad-minded; moderate; freethinking; tolerant; laissez-faire; and noninterventionist. These are all positive values to my mind. Wouldn’t it require a rather staid dogmatist to reject them?
It turns out that all of these current definitions and synonyms, fairly describe my own attitudes and outlook on life. So, the only reason I ever need qualify my liberal bent with the prefix ‘classic,’ is to disavow the collectivist and altruistic nature of most Leftist social justice warriors, who are routinely labeled and disparaged as simply ‘liberals,’ by cultural warriors on the Right. Surprisingly, nowhere have I found the bugaboos of altruism and/or collectivism, mentioned under the heading of liberalism. This would suggest that in this case, the corruption of the English language was likely done by the Right, rather than the Left. They are the ones misusing the term.
More tutoring from Chris:
“I know it’s hard to accept but there will always be government. Always has been. Human nature doesn’t change like that.â€
It depends on your definition of ‘government.’ By mine, in terms of systematic ‘rule,’ and ‘rulers’ employing armed enforcers to govern a population, there certainly has not always been. There have always been ungovernable frontiers on this planet, and there still are. E.g. the Pashtun tribal no-man’s-land, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are several others in that part of the world. Afghanistan itself is largely ungoverned, despite being considered a nation state.
You might not like the conditions extant in such frontiers; but there is nothing preventing those who choose to live there, from moving to the more ‘civilized’ areas of their countries, where they would be subject to the rule and rulers of the state. How many of us would move to a Galt’s Gulch in a heartbeat, to escape the tyranny of ubiquitous government rulers, tax collectors, and enforcers, if such a frontier still existed in America? I sure would.
“The single document in the world that comes closest to guaranteeing the liberalism you would desire is the constitution of the United States.â€
Poppycock. Setting aside my rejection of your premise that a constitutional government is somehow required to maintain Liberty, the U.S. Constitution has obviously done no such thing, and never will. The only way such a document could ever hope to constrain a nation state’s tyrannical rulers, is if the citizenry were indefatigably ready, willing, and able to effectively revolt against their jackbooted thugs if necessary, and summarily hang the offenders without mercy, to strictly enforce it. With the passing of our generation, such will definitely no longer exist among the largely docile, dumbed-down, domesticated, sheeple that remain in America. More the pity… ◄Dave►
How about a remarkable diversion from politics and mayhem?
I always thought I had been born too late, and had missed out on the pleasures of the simpler life of our ancestors. It now occurs to me that the opposite may be true:
Just imagine what it must be like to be a modern Croatian teenager, watching such talent shows on his TV, rather than “Leave it to Beaver.” BTW… the older guy they keep showing cheering with his thumbs up, is her father. The world has truly changed in our lifetimes, and not always for the worse… no? 😉 â—„Daveâ–º
If you don’t know Dave Rubin and Candace Owens, you should. He is gay. She is black. Both have moved decidedly from the Left to the Right, and can articulate why. Here is an excellent opportunity to get to know them both:
I recently mentioned that I rarely even turn on my TV anymore. That is primarily because, as a political news junkie, that is all I have ever watched for the past 40 years or so. It hasn’t always been that way. As a young man, I was hooked on football. It began long before TIVO, when I couldn’t miss a pro game on Sundays. When it advanced to the point of not wanting to miss a college game on Saturdays, it finally occurred to me that I was wasting my weekends, watching other people have fun. I went cold turkey in the mid ‘70s. Now, I only ever watch the Super Bowl, and half the time I DVR that.
Now that I am effectively boycotting cable news, for loss of interest in partisan politics, and am probably getting too old to enjoy much exercise, I just might become a football fan again. My prime motive would be to support the NFL, in the face of the state’s call for sheeple to boycott their games. Whatever one might think of their personal motives for doing so, the players’ open defiance of nationalistic rituals, needs to be encouraged by right-thinking Liberty-loving individuals.
The notion that those dissatisfied with the state, can just stop waving its flag or standing at attention for its anthem, is certainly to be encouraged. It wouldn’t do if the NFL had to knuckle under to the state’s economic pressure, so the least I can do is help keep their ratings up. I think I’ll set my DVR up to record all NFL games, even if I don’t bother to watch them.  😉 ◄Dave►
Profound: “My education was not free – I paid for it with my mind!†-Candace Owens
Start here:
…to watch the last 15 minutes of this remarkable interview. If you find her as inspirational as I do, then when you have the time you’ll want to go back and watch the whole hour from the beginning.
BTW: Here is her hot YouTube channel. Her clips are all short and powerful. Enjoy… â—„Daveâ–º
Rogan & Musk
