I keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars. They don’t really mean that, of course. What they mean is they want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let’s start:
To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.
To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A “Sports car” will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos.
©2013 by Michael Z. Williamson http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com
Permission to share granted for non profit purposes as long as this notice is included.
(Repost; Original Disappeared.)
Originally posted on The Five Rights of the Individual:
1. Each person has five fundamental rights, the first two of which are the rights to life and liberty. The right to life means that no person may harm another. The right to liberty lets each person do as he chooses. Thus, a free civilization’s premise is, each person can do as he chooses provided he does not harm another.
2. Property is the fruit of one’s labor. Physical property gives liberty a place to exist. The property line establishes the protected sphere. It separates public (majority rule) from private (personal choice). Property is a mini sovereignty in which the owner is autonomous within common law, where he may act without asking permission or giving explanation. Property shields the individual from government’s tendency to treat every issue as a public concern.
3. Property also enables liberty by increasing the number of choices. More money, more choices. Higher taxes means fewer…
View original 368 more words
Originally posted on the Humane Condition:
Critics of sweatshop labor often accuse sweatshops of providing inhumane conditions and inadequate pay to the workers. Anti-sweatshop activists take several different modes of action in order to try and end sweatshop labor practices. Boycotts, petitioning for legislation, and buying “fair-trade” products are the typical paths that these activists pursue.
To be concerned with what the real world effects of any policy will be rather than just the intention behind it is crucial to accurate appraisal of policy. Indeed, when Henry Hazlitt condensed all of economics into a single lesson, it was that “the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”(1) It is this type of analysis that leads me to type the following. The…
View original 1,905 more words
A group of individuals create a company, out of their own pockets they hire laborers. Then one day, another company of men get founded. The two decide one day to merge, yet there’s something stopping them. This fellow has his own company of men armed to the teeth, demands them to keep competing or else they’ll be removed/arrested from their organizations.
What’s wrong with this picture, anyone? Right, a fellow going around thinking he should be allowed to just tell others what to do, even claiming it’s for the greater good, he’s still using violence against a non-violent activity. This is also reminiscent of another activity, what happens when a government decides to stop a merger (after all, if you break a government law you get threatened with force if you don’t comply).
But, assuming you still don’t see the problem, let’s put you in the picture. Are you willing to walk up to someone and commit violence against them because you believe they’re either charging you for someone you think you have a right to or overcharging? That’s exactly what you’re doing here.
Every single regulation a government carries out is backed by a threat of force. That is, at the very least any attempt to resist can and will result in harm to the person resisting which can lead to death, and even if you do not resist you are still caged like an animal wherein any attempt to escape is punishable by death. That’s if you’re lucky (rehab is worse, it is a brainwashing scam), and that’s because it is all that government is capable of doing to you – violence.
So again, are you willing to stand on the front line with a weapon pointed at someone because they don’t follow your law despite being peaceful? Are you willing to let the law come knock on your front door because either you in your great wisdom thought a merge between a company you own and another company was a good thing or because you can sell or make an item the majority claim they have the right to for free? If you’re going to say no to either of these, then why do you think anyone else should?
Fact: it’s a double standard, and there certainly is nothing ethical or moral about it in history unless you’re the kind of person that supports a variety of barbarian standards. Ergo, it is uncivilized, yet here we are in the 21st century and people support it still? The fuck kind of civilization is that, exactly? What is civilized is caring for and about others, but there’s nothing civilized about committing violence – especially to either force others into doing something you wouldn’t yourself do or to stamp in others your relative ideas of what may or may not be a right or is right and wrong.
That is why, even if one admits government may be a necessary evil, why most agencies still shouldn’t exist whether it’s the FCC, DOE, DHS, IRS, FBI/NSA/CIA, or almost every other member of the “alphabetical acronym government agencies” group not already mentioned. One way or another, it is an additional form of victimless crime based on entirely-arbitrary ideals and just adds fuel to an already-violent monopoly of fire.
So I hear people still shouting for raises as they complain about the distance being too much or that it costs too much to port, still complaining about EXP being too much to level, and the majority of which still have no fucking clue how to deal with a simple-fucking dungeon. What the fucking hell? Huh? Just like quite a few of us have said a million motherfucking times by now. Oh but did anyone believe us? Nope. All the damned whiteknight trolls and casual fuckers, claiming they just want shit to be accessible – like as if anyone was ever against the accessibility argument itself. Every single fucking time the difficulty or something was made more ‘accessible‘, someone complains about it not being enough. Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but… WE DAMN WELL MOTHERFUCKING TOLD YOU SO.
Did you even know the reason we asked for Level Sync was to also keep things decently-tough & capped? Without Lv.Sync, one could fly through every single quest, and yet even with Lv.Sync, most of us have flown threw every quest. It ain’t doing its job. Even more ironic, this is the real deal now while so many assholes were claiming, “but it’s only beta” thinking we’d get some miracle patch, just like with 1.0’s launch! Fools, we’re no longer in a mere beta, as far as difficulty can possibly go, regardless of mechanics which did not once change from beta to now – again ‘we told you so’, which quite honestly just doesn’t really even begin to speak about the situation if we’re to be truthful.
But this post is not merely to just go, ‘haha, in your face,’ since not everything has indeed been explored. No, what it is about is how all of those that have complained about the game being too hardcore, are all of those still complaining that it’s still not good enough for you: that despite that EXP is even easier than ever before still whine about it being time-consuming to hit cap, that if they’re forced to return they may have to take a dent in their virtual wallet of gil at most to port back, that crafting and gathering is still somehow remotely hard, and that every dungeon has in fact been instanced just as casual players wanted while whining they are forced to group for a MAIN SCENARIO quest.
Hell, some of you still claim FFXIV is a Hardcore MMO. Say what? How the hell can you even remotely claim that? It’s by far definitely one of the most casual P2P MMOs in history, just as it was in 1.23 too, such a funny thing considering all the idiotic naysayers complaining about it lacking casual-friendly options.So why the fuck can you not take that fucking nookie and just shut the fuck up!? Huh!? This game, Final Fantasy XIV 2.0: A Realm Reborn as it exists now, has been built to please the casual crowds, not those that play MMO’s for its long-term investment.
The rest of the MMO world – we do know the answer to the question, and thus it’s something you should ask yourselves – that is, those still complaining about the game being too ‘difficult’ or ‘time-consuming’. It is quickly becoming why many MMO players don’t like self-proclaimed ‘casual players’, and also why many ‘hardcore gamers’ tend to associate casuals and accessibility arguments with the entitlement culture & ezmode: because you guys don’t ever fucking stop complaining about time-consumption and you always wind-up exclaiming wanting stuff easier, no matter how many times you get your way.
We all know the drill, some nationalist doesn’t like that you disagree with their government or its methods and accuses you of hating America. At some point, you’re just waiting for them to scream out, ‘if you don’t like America, leave.’
Wait, what? How the hell is this a serious statement to begin with anyways? It really makes no sense for a variety of reasons. One is that the United States is a humongous country whose states on average are the size of an average European country, meaning it ought easily provide for all sorts of groups.
A more important reason, however, is one I want to address here, to put it simple: America is the ‘Land of the Free, Home of the Brave’ as we’ve all heard it before. Under the theory that America was founded on liberty, freedom, justice for all, who better to remain in America than those that actually support the idea of freedom? After all, how many countries in the world sport freedom & restricting government versus that of a big government?
There’s only one country that’s even remotely about restricting government, and the world is filled with a variety of big governments that anyone should be able to live happy with. So to demand those of us that actually support restricting or abolishing government to leave when there is nothing else out there to support us, I mean isn’t that just ludicrous? They are the ones in support of those big governments, not us; they believe government interference is good, we don’t.
Even though anyone with decent knowledge should know it is possible to pay as many more taxes as one writes, particularly by writing checks to the U.S. Treasury to help pay off our debt, it seems many wealthy folk continue to complain that they don’t pay enough taxes.
Warren Buffett is one such case, and most of Hollywood is in a similar boat. Warren Buffett is infamous for complaining about his secretary or someone on his tab gets taxed too much compared to him just because she’s on a lower income; Hollywood is infamous for just complaining that taxes aren’t high enough, for any myriad of reasons I couldn’t begin to count even with all the time in the world.
Just like how some/many corporations advocate minimum wage, it too is a damn-good altruistic move, if you only look at it skin-deep. But there’s a problem, just like the corporate entities supporting minimum wage can always just hire at higher wage rates, so too can Hollywood, Warren Buffett, and anyone else wanting to decrease the debt pay more taxes.
So is it possible that Hollywood & Buffett just don’t know? I would say it’s an insult to their and our own intelligence to assume they don’t know, even though worse things are reality. So why is it they don’t just write a check to the U.S. Treasury? I mean, it’s not like they are claiming it immoral. They simply just don’t do it, despite that it’d be hell of a lot more effective; if the wealthy were seen writing checks to the U.S. Treasury, I’d go so far as to argue it’d create a chain reaction that would get even more wealthy and notso-wealthy non-poor individuals into writing checks based on peer influence.
Yet they still advocate higher taxes, but then whom are they pandering to exactly? Two similar groups: politicians & voters that would use these figures to make a case that since the wealthy should pay more they should be taxed more. Why? What do these groups have the wealthy would want? Are the wealthy just masochist? I wouldn’t think so.
But these groups certainly advocate for centralized governments that take away free competition & the power of the individual under the guise of greed being evil and whatever other moral arguments they want to make, and that too is what the wealthy want since they don’t like others earning the same money they could be earning.
That is why it should be no surprise the wealthy can support these “anti-corporate” features. They’re not merely anti-corporate, they’re anti-competitive. They drive up the minimum floor for an employee to compete in ways that even the smallest of businesses are forced into accepting, even when the law itself does not contain the language to effect the smaller businesses.
So next time you complain or see someone else complain about your taxes being too low, remember this: if you really wanted, everyone is more than welcome to write a check to the U.S. Treasury. But don’t complain that others aren’t being taxed enough because it’s both stupid and hypocritical, as those want higher taxes either are so poor they’re wanting more than their ‘fair share’ and will be worse-off for it as they could probably use every dollar they can get or wealthy enough that they can pay more taxes.