PostHeaderIcon Dilbert on Trump

You are probably familiar with the Dilbert comic strip. It turns out that Scott Adams is also a blogger and astute thinker. He has penned a very thought-provoking piece entitled, “The Risks of a Trump Presidency,” which begins:

What exactly is the risk of a Trump presidency? Beats me. But let’s talk about it anyway.

Your Abysmal Track Record

For starters, ask yourself how well you predicted the performance of past presidents. Have your psychic powers been accurate?

I’m not good at predicting the performance of presidents. I thought Reagan would be dangerous, but he presided over the end of the Cold War. And I thought George W. Bush would be unlikely to start a war, much less two of them.

But it gets better. Even AFTER the presidency, can you tell who did the best job? I can’t. You think you can, but you can’t. And the simple reason for that is because there is no base case with which to compare a president. All we know is what did happen, not what might have happened if we took another path. You can’t compare a situation in the real world to your imaginary world in which something better happened. That is nonsense. And yet we do it. Watch me prove it right now.

That should be tease enough for a thinker Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Waiting For SHTF

I was participating in a thoughtful comment section discussion elsewhere, regarding the 2nd Amendment, when I was inspired to pen a rather fulsome reply to a comment, which I think worth sharing here. He was at once advocating serious preparation for an inevitable SHTF armed confrontation, and then declaring his support for Trump, because he hopes he might be able to delay that reckoning a little longer. My reply:

Has it ever occurred to you that we are being played like a fiddle, and by continuing to delay the inevitable SHTF, our generation is letting our posterity down? It might just be that hoping Trump can again delay it, might one day be viewed as an act of cowardice by an old man, hoping to put off the unpleasantness until after he has gone.

I have been saying for years that they are delaying the implementation of their NWO dreams, until after we Vietnam era veterans have either died, or are too old to fight. At the same time, they have been indoctrinating and training the current kids in the military and DHS, to be ready and willing to confiscate civilian arms, and shoot or roundup dissidents when so ordered.

After the first oil crisis in ’73, I became convinced that the US government was completely broke, and that there was no way the politicians could continue to get away with inflating the currency, to hide it from the sheeple. Today the term is ‘preppers’; but back then they called those of us preparing for SHTF ‘survivalists.’ Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Imprecise Language

In a reply to a recent remark I had made, attempting to clarify my position regarding a laissez faire stateless society, Chris said:

So now your saying government is ok as long as it’s on your terms. It’s just the size and scope that you find offensive. We can debate that all day which is pretty much where we started off. 🙂

OK, fair enough; in my various attempts to express and defend my still evolving thoughts, on the avoidable misfortune of mankind being forcefully subjugated to the will of often impetuous rulers, I have occasionally used imprecise language. When I have used the term ‘government,’ I have generally meant the Federal government, or ‘state’ known as the USA, headquartered in Washington, DC. Reviewing several dictionaries, I find anywhere from six to nine different definitions for the term ‘government,’ and an astonishing 126 different terms for various forms of government. Those employing words like ‘control’; ‘rule’; ‘authority’; and ‘state’ I would steadfastly oppose outright. Yet, I suppose it is not entirely unfair to apply the generic term ‘government,’ to the chief and/or council of a tribal village, or some other forms of voluntary social compacts, which do not entail rulers and/or coercion. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Alongside Night

In my continuing  research into what I refer to as a Laissez Faire Stateless Society, I have encountered a lot of new terms attempting to redefine anarchy, which has such a negative connotation in the minds of sheeple. One of them is ‘Voluntaryist.’ I have discovered an interesting and informative website, with the simple URL of voluntaryist.com. Friday evening, I was perusing a section of it entitled, “How I Became a Voluntaryist,” which consists of personal testimonials. While reading Ben Speers’ biographical, “Conscience of a “Former” Conservative,” I encountered:

This idea, that people should be free to do whatever they want apart from initiating violence, crystallized in my mind. Soon I realized that there could be no ethical justifications for exceptions to this rule. This immediately led me to a conclusion that shocked me to the core, for I had never considered it before. The conclusion that I came to was that there was no moral justification for any violence-based government, which is to say any government at all based on the popular definition of government. Logically, the only road left to me was anarchism.

Bingo… welcome to my world! Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon America reborn – My Main Error

As you may have noticed, I have had little to say on this topic lately. That is because it did not seem worth the effort. Then it dawned on me why… I have been focused on what SHOULD be done when the real question is, what CAN be done.

Said another way, what might a few people like ourselves actually suggest that would motivate others to get involved? A list of my initial suggestions follows:

–> ??

–> ??

That’s about all I have. Sorry.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon Megyn & Trump

Like a great many, I couldn’t resist watching this. In case you missed it:

Personally, I rather enjoyed it. I reckon they both scored… 😀 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Madison’s Angels

Recently, in objections to my interest in exploring anarchy, or what I prefer to call a laissez faire stateless society, James Madison’s famous quip that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary” has been mentioned a few times. The implication being that since we are not angels, we absolutely require rulers and a coercive state to make us behave, or society would quickly devolve into total chaos.

I decided to pen a rebuttal to this common belief, and did a quick search to find Madison’s exact quote, and the precise context in which he made it. It was in “The Federalist No. 51,” where he was expounding on the necessity of the separation of powers, with checks and balances, in the Constitution:

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

Thus, the context speaks for itself. Madison was far more concerned with mechanisms to limit and control the government, than how best to control the people. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon UniParty Duopoly

The so-called Two Party System has been revealed as a sham for decades. Libertarians were referring to it as either the Demopublicans or Republocrats since at least the ’70s. Eight years ago, I added the mutual interest of maintaining incumbency to their cabal, with the neologism ‘Incumbrepublocrat Party.’ Recently, I have increasingly been seeing it referred to as the “UniParty.” I don’t much care what it is labeled, if the sheeple will just wake up to the reality that it is a Kabuki Theater of the absurd, designed to keep them at each others’ throats, instead of the oligarchs. Now, Sundance in “The Fallacy of False Choice: Why Bill Kristol Keeps Talking Up Another Option….,” suggests evidence that many are:

There is a new awakening amid the electorate; one that has been a long time coming, but it is finally here.  More Americans are aware of the UniParty than ever before.

FACT:  When both teams in the Super Bowl are owned by the same person, the Lombardi Trophy is destined to end up the same cabinet regardless of who wins.

There is only one party in Washington DC, the UniParty.  They are funded by the same ownership, Wall Street; and their legislative victories end up with the same benefactors.  The candidacy of Donald Trump represents a second party option for the first time in two decades.

He then goes into the mountain of empirical evidence, showing that the Republican Congress might as well have been Democrats for the past 8 years. Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Voting Against

I have long lamented never having something worth voting for. Pat thoughtfully disagrees:

…that certainly puts a different spin on it; but I still reckon that voting either way, only legitimizes the bureaucratic Leviathan, which always wins every election. 🙁 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Retirin’ Ryan

Just when the Trump show was becoming boring… This is probably the best campaign ad I have ever seen:

Sarah Palin has endorsed him and has said she will help ‘Cantor’ Ryan in any way she can. I sure hope Trump’s organization manages to donate a few million bucks to his campaign. Trump should mention the possibility in his meeting with Ryan this week.  Imagine how the term ‘Cantor-Ryan Retirement Party’ could modify GOPe behavior in the future! 😀 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon State of Denial

Robert Ringer’s just released article, “The Arrogance of the Prom King,” is another masterpiece. It brilliantly makes the point I was recently trying to make in a comment to Troy, that Trump’s success is a bellwether of a real revolution happening in America:

Just when you think you’ve heard and seen it all in the Republican campaignathon, along comes prom king Paul Ryan displaying an arrogance that makes Donald Trump look like the Dalai Lama by comparison. Millions of American jaws must have dropped in unison when chameleon Ryan casually told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he’s “just not ready” to support Trump.

Really? Where do I even begin to address such a remarkable display of unflinching arrogance? How about just stating the obvious — that the litmus-test conservative crowd still doesn’t get it.

That’s right, hard as it is to believe, after ten months of watching Trump swat every political fly who’s annoyed him, the pathetic “Never Trump” crowd really and truly still does not understand what’s taking place in America.

Specifically, what they don’t get is that this is a genuine revolution. And it’s not a revolution about Trump. It’s a revolution about the corruption and arrogance of the leadership of the Republican Party — and, on a broader scale, the entire Washington political establishment.

That’s right, it’s taken eight long and destructive years, but the Republican Party’s base is now in full revolt against the Ryans, the McConnells, the McCains, the Grahams, et al. You’d have to be blind, deaf, and stupid — or totally delusional — not to have figured that out by now. Nevertheless, the guys who have run things for decades have chosen to stubbornly remain in a state of denial.

State of denial, indeed… Do go read and enjoy the whole thing. 😀 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon WTF: Jones Too?

Is this just a spoof of Beck, or is this fool serious? I just don’t get it. This is not my image of Alex Jones:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Can there actually be two conspiracy-minded, talk show host, religious nuts, who like to cry on camera?  Please, God, deliver us from your evil preachers! Sheesh… ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Hillary’s Turn

With both Cruz and Kasich now out of the game, it is Hillary’s turn in Trump’s sights for his wild politician destruction derby. It should be even more entertaining than the preliminary rounds. It appears that “Anonymous” is ready to help with an outline for the opposition research:

How many of those scandals had you forgotten? How many have young voters never even heard of? What are the chances that they soon will? This is going to be continuously amusing to watch, especially the dilemma of the #NeverTrump cabal, as he systematically rips the bark off her, on the way to his overwhelming victory in November… 😀 ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon That’s All Folks

Wow! I sure didn’t see this coming…

Cruz_Out

 

…yet! 😀 ◄Dave►

 

 

PostHeaderIcon AR: Purpose

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

Alas, it is with great disappointment that I can see already that I am not going to be very helpful with this project. I had difficulty even picking a relevant stub for this comment. Thus, I will add this new one. What exactly is to be the purpose of America 2.0?

As I understood our mission, it was to design a workable replacement societal structure, for the rapidly collapsing America 1.0. I find I am not ready to concede the basic premise inherent in the descriptions of these stubs; namely that whatever their forms, there must again be a nation-state, with a hierarchy of ancillary governments to control the population.

Next to my life, my personal Liberty, and individual Sovereignty, are at the top of my hierarchy of values. I regard what is being referred to here as ‘limited government,’ as instead a ‘coercive’ entity, providing ‘limited Liberty’ and perhaps ‘limited Sovereignty,’ for the ‘altruistic’ benefit of the ‘collective,’ all of which are odious concepts to me.

As I have suggested, I think I have some workable ideas that do not require coercion, or empowering anyone to violate enlightened civilization’s fundamental non-aggression axiom. Before I can figure out how to incorporate them into these categories, I need the answer to the above question… what is to the fundamental purposes we are trying to achieve? If I could demonstrate how they might be achieved without government, will anyone be willing to entertain such ideas seriously? ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon AR: Sovereignty

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

Simply stated, how should sovereignty be allocated in a reborn America? We take it as a given that all individuals should enjoy some level of individual liberty but, does this mean that every individual has the same input / influence into the governing system? For instance, should suffrage be universal or should there be some qualifications or limitations on the voting franchise?

Additionally, without presuming any specific governmental hierarchy yet assuming some manner of hierarchy will prove desirable, how should sovereignty be allocated between the various levels in whatever hierarchy results in this reborn America? How does one limit the ability of one level in a hierarchy from devouring the sovereignty of other levels? (I refer here to what has happened to current America where the Federal level of our hierarchy has effectively neutralized the sovereignty of the State and Local levels.

PostHeaderIcon AR: Funding

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

How best should the various levels of necessary government be allowed to fund themselves?

PostHeaderIcon AR: Limiting Government

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

Our Founders did a credible job of creating a workable balance between the necessity for some control (government) while still allowing maximum liberty. Yet, they soon discovered the impossibility of “keeping the genie in the bottle”. Is this, as I suspect, an inevitable flaw in any and all attempts to govern? If so, how best to keep the inevitable at bay for as long as possible? Better yet, might there be a scheme that would provide for continual rebirth without continual chaos?

Said another way, are there ways to make governmental structure more immune to the realities of human nature?

PostHeaderIcon AR: Liberty

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

I take it as a given that a reborn America must be a land of freedom. All the while recognizing that some control (government) is required. Or, as Madison observed, if men were angels…

In a word, how best to provide the necessary amount of control (government) to protect freedom, safety, etc. while minimizing the intrusion into individual liberty?

PostHeaderIcon AR: Economic System

[Note: Posts with titles that begin with AR: are stubs for the project described atAmerica Reborn,” which probably should be read first…]

What should be the primary economic system of the reborn America? How can it be made more fair while still keeping it free? What is the proper role of the State in the economic system?

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Think Up/Down not Left/Right
Archives
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak
Please also join us here. ◄Dave►