The Chiiiiiiiiiilllllllllldren

Print Friendly

Maybe this bugs you, too?

There’s a “school zone” ahead and – clearly, obviously – there are no kids about. But the DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! flashing lights are on anyhow – probably because they’re on autopilot and set to go off at a certain time each day even if school is closed or it’s the weekend.

And – boom! – the guy ahead of you slows to a crippled crawl. God knows, there might be a sainted child within a 5 mile orbit and he just might run into the road. Even though of course, there’s not. The parking lot’s empty and the school’s as dead as Grant’s Tomb.

No one uses judgment anymore.  

For 99 percent of drivers, the mere mention of children is enough to throw their safety fetish into overdrive. The reflex is as conditioned as the drooling of Pavlov’s dogs. No using their eyes (and brains) and deciding, ok, it’s obvious school’s closed. No kids around. It’s probably ok to go faster than 15 MPH (assuming no cops are around).

But no.

The sign is there; the lights are flashing. And that triggers the response:

Submit. Obey.  

Maybe I’m just a member of the last generation that didn’t consider “the children” the central organizing principle of society – and the knee-jerk excuse for endless petty tyrannies, from mandatory seat belt laws to these over-the-top “school zone” crawl zones.

Faberge eggs are juggled by drunken clowns compared with the suffocating envelope of safety we envelope “the children” in – and also any unlucky adults who happen to be nearby.

It’s mostly because of “the children” that all of us now have to pay (according to most estimates) $500-$1,000 more for a new car, because new cars all have to have air bags – and air bags make cars “safer” for “the children.”

It’s mostly because of “the children” that we have these noxious “buckle-up” at gunpoint laws that have given the Polizei legal cause to harass you in your own car simply for not wearing your seat belt. It’s not going to be long before they start making us eat our veggies, too.

It is a Major Event when a school bus picks up or drops off a sainted child. Many flashing lights – including, lately, strobe lights on the roof of the thing – plus a fold-out STOP! sign that (you guessed it) folds out most imposingly as the bus comes to a stop. At which point, all within a mile orbit of the yellow carriage must also come to a stop. It’s almost as if the presidential motorcade had arrived and the Great One is about to step out for a wave at the masses.

All wait, hushed in awe.

Meanwhile, back in the Gen X days of the ’70s, school busses were driven by salty old ladies who either smoked or drank (sometimes both). They were not especially enamored of us – the children – and neither were most adults. We did not call our parents’ adult friends by their first names; we didn’t monopolize the conversations, either. In fact, we were likely told to “go do something” and leave the adults the hell alone. We often actually walked – gasp! – unsupervised (gasp again!) from the bus stop to our house. Hovering pahrunts were not immediately and always there in an SmooooVeee to scoop us up and make sure we got home (safely) so that we could sit in front of some idiot Pixar droolfest for the next two hours. Instead we played some pick-up football, rooted around in the woods… or something – on our own initiative, no coaches or orchestrated uber-organization required. 

And when we got picked up in the Vista Cruiser, we just hopped in the back and rode (or rolled around) unbuckled all the way home. Can you imagine it? None of this business of strapping eight and nine-year-olds into “safety seats” like pint-sized Hannibal Lecters. And somehow, we survived this (by modern standards) horrifically unsafe environment of neglect and indifference.  

School zones existed but they weren’t Sacred Zones, as they are today.

No metal detectors; no calling the cops because a 12-year-old pointed his fingers at another kid and said Bang!

What the hell happened? And can we throw this thing into reverse?

Throw it in the Woods?

Share Button

  41 comments for “The Chiiiiiiiiiilllllllllldren

  1. dom
    January 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    The future is so bright with blinding stupidity! doh I got bumped into at the gas station yesterday by a lady on her cell phone (we were inside paying). She walked square into me.

  2. clover
    January 23, 2011 at 2:35 am

    There were no salty old ladies driving busses who were drinking and smoking from where I grew up but I forgot, you grew up in the back country. I did see one of those flashing light speed limit signs on Friday and it did not seem to be flashing. I guess it is only you that they are trying to irritate the hell out of. Yes back in those days we had 4 people in the front of a pickup truck unbelted but back in those days people did not know better and thousands of needless deaths happened because of lack of laws and technology that we have today. I know you want to go back to those days when your friends were killed more often on the highway.

    • January 23, 2011 at 11:12 am

      Actually, I grew up just outside of the Heart of Darkness itself – Washington, D.C.

      On the “lack of laws.” You and I have opposite viewpoints on the role of government vs. the rightful prerogatives of the individual. You are a collectivist authoritarian (maybe a “left wing” Democrat or even possibly a “right wing” Republican). You believe that your ideas about how to live, what risks are too risky, etc. ought to be imposed by force on everyone else. If you think something’s good, you’re not content to buy it or use it or do it yourself and let otherwise do as they see fit. You aren’t happy until everyone is compelled to do it your way, at gunpoint.

      I believe in the sovereign individual; in the right of that individual to live his life and make whatever decisions he thinks proper about how to live that life free of any compulsion unless his actions actually harm or clearly threaten imminent, obvious harm to others.

      In terms of our ongoing debate, this means I do not support fleecing drivers for “speeding” or “not buckling up for safety.” Neither driving faster than a number on a sign nor driving unbuckled threatens anyone else in any direct, meaningful sense. Vague attempts to equate “speeding” with (an asserted, not proved) possibility of a higher likelihood of having a wreck don’t cut it.

      Your world is one of ever-increasing rules and restrictions; of suffocating Thou Shalt Nots – all of them based on the least common denominator. And with you issuing the orders. My world is one where initiative and competence are valued and respected – and never punished. Where only those who cause actual problems for others – not abstractions or hypotheticals – need fear “the law.” Where it is up to each of us to use our own best judgment and choose for ourselves.

      If you want to drive 48 MPH in a 55 – fine. I don’t support your being ticketed for doing so. But in return, why do you get indignant about my driving faster – or passing you by? Why not live – and let live? The crux of it isn’t that you just want to go at your own pace; it’s that you resent others who don’t want to go at your pace – and lust to see them punished for it.

      That is the heart of the matter.

      Unfortunately, your viewpoint is winning. From “sobriety checkpoints” and mandatory air bags to probable-cause-less feel-ups by the TSA and warrantless searches of our persons and effects. You and your fellow travelers are making things “safer” than ever.

      But it’s a pretty bleak world you’re creating. And one day, the Beast may turn ’round on you – and regard you as a tasty morsel indeed.

    • Ken
      January 26, 2011 at 6:02 pm

      Apart from the general idiocy of your comments one other thing stands out a mile. It is obvious that, for some god forsaken reason, you do not think that people should be allowed to make their own decisions as to the level of ‘safety equipment’ they fell they need. I, on the other hand completely disagree. When i was young, and I’m probably a good few years older than you, rules and regulations were far less restrictive. I was one of a group of motorcyclists who loved the buzz and adrenaline rush of speed – back in those days there were no speedlimits on open roads and the NSL was a horror far in the future. Some of us took what we considered to be reasonable precautions, we wore gloves, boots, helmets (very primitive in those days)and riding jackets and pants, usually Belstaff. Others thought that was pansy stuff and rode with no added protection at all. Many of those who wore no protection crashed and died, many of us who wore protective gear crashed and lived – the thing you seem to be oblivious to is the fact that the choice was ours to make. There is a term to cover this sort of reasoning, it is called FREEDOM OF CHOICE, one of the most precious of life we ever had and one which is steadily being eroded, day in and day out, by the Touchy Feely, Health and Safety obsessed, I know better than you morons, infesting every decision making branch of our society, who wish to reduce us all to non-thinking, spineless, jelly brained amoebae.

      p.s. If you are a God worshipper, think on this – God was supposed to have given humans the right of free will. If you believe this what right have you to try and take it away?

      • January 26, 2011 at 6:28 pm

        Ken, I wish you could hear me… clapping until my hands bleed! Amen, huzzah and all the rest of it.

        Well-said!

    • Ursula
      February 8, 2011 at 5:53 am

      Clover, you named yourself well. I expect you are one of those people who would drive me out of my mind on the highway, refusing to move over, because you feel the need to ‘make people obey the speed limit’.

      Seriously, I don’t believe that more people died in crashes in the days before mandatory seatbelt laws. In fact, two of my brothers would be dead now if they had been buckled in when they crashed in 1972. They were saved from being crushed to death, one by falling out the door, the other by going through the windshield.

      Even though I always buckle up and still would do so if there wasn’t a law, I resent HAVING to do so by law, as it should be my choice.

      In Germany (which is where I am from), there is NO speed limit, other than for large trucks/transports on the large highways (Autobahn). My older brother regularly drives at 200 kmh (124 mph) – which freaks me out (when I visit and drive with him), because here in Canada the upper speed limit is only 100 kmh (about 62 mph, which is utterly ridiculous).

      But statistics show that Germany does NOT have more car crashes than Canada. Because, you see, the large trucks are not allowed to be in the far passing lane at all. They aren’t allowed on the Autobahn during rush-hour traffic, either. And if one of them with a dangerous load is caught speeding (and they have a speed limit of 100 kmh), they lose their license.

      Since it is the large trucks that are almost always the cause of the terrible highway accidents, if they’re the ones who have the speed limits and rules, everybody is safer, even if the other drivers can drive as fast as they feel is safe for them.

      • February 8, 2011 at 12:09 pm

        Clover – by nature – is not capable of grasping such things. A Clover believes (a) every law is by definition a good law and (b) his attitudes, beliefs and way of living should be imposed by law on everyone else. This is the 100 proof essence of Cloverism. He believes the speed limit (any speed limit; all speed limits) is by definition the right speed, the maximum safe speed – and that not only should people who exceed it be punished, it’s his job to help enforce the limit by refusing the yield/move over to let “speeders” (as he would call them) pass.

        Unfortunately, Cloverism is spreading. America used to be a place that mocked Cloverism; it is increasingly a place defined by it.

  3. eidolon
    January 23, 2011 at 9:14 am

    +1 this
    omg I miss the 70′s sometimes.
    Not to mention the horror stories of small children decapitated by airbags in 10mph “collisions”. So now they’re strapped in child safety seats, in the back seat.
    OK, not sometimes.
    You go, Eric.

  4. January 23, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Thanks!

    And: Excellent point re the decapitation (and other major injuries) that are downplayed or never mentioned at all in this debate. Air bags are the only mandatory “safety” equipment that have killed and injured people. Yes, they’ve also saved lives. But shouldn’t it be up to each of us – not the government – to decide whether the risks (and costs) of air bags are worth assuming?

    It’s worth mentioning that air bags were available as optional equipment 20 years before they became mandatory; the problem was that almost no one voluntarily bought them. So the car companies got the government to create “demand” by mandating them. Now, we’re all “customers” (just like at the DMV), making “contributions” (just like Social Security taxes).

    • clover
      January 26, 2011 at 2:40 am

      for once we agree Eric. I wish all the vehicles that you drive did not have air bags.

      • dom
        January 26, 2011 at 5:08 am

        It’s nice to have people that don’t share the same views, opinions, and ideas. This is what makes conversation interesting and educational (sometimes). I like to think, and really do believe, I respect everyones opinion. With that said, there are so many other automotive sites on the net. I know you must envy this one Clover because it’s the only pro-freedom, Libertarian car site around. Additionally, I know you don’t truly understand the things we discuss here. This is obvious in your replies. Also, I understand you might feel empowered knowing you have someone, Eric who is far more intelligent than you, to converse with. Having the opportunity to attempt bringing him/anyone to your level must give you a hard on. Basically what I am saying is I’m not going to allow you to post your stupid fucking comments anymore!

      • January 26, 2011 at 11:41 am

        Unfortunately, our Clover-infested government didn’t allow me that choice. Both my trucks have dual air bags. I don’t feel the need for them and would not have bought them, if I’d had the choice. But Clovers don’t like giving people choices. They like to force them to do what they think is right and proper, even when its absolutely none of their business – because it’s a personal choice that ought to be left to the individual.

        One of the worst consequences of the force-feeding of air bags is that owners of older, air bag-equipped vehicles are in constant danger of a total loss in the event of a relatively minor and otherwise repairable accident. Insurance companies will typically “total” a car if the repair costs are estimated to be 50 percent or more of the vehicle’s retail value. If you own an older vehicle with air bags – like my ’98 Nissan Frontier – with a retail value of say $4,000 or so and you get into a minor accident that causes the bags to go off (they trigger at impacts of as little as 20 MPH) the cost of replacing the bags (which entails replacing the steering wheel and the dashboard too, both of which are destroyed during the air bag deployment) can easily be $2,000 before even touching any of the actual body damage. Thus, the vehicle – otherwise perfectly repairable, with probably years of life left – is “totaled.” The owner is left with a check that won’t get him an equivalent vehicle. He gets screwed instead – because of Cloverite laws.

        I keep trying to get an answer out of you:

        What gives you the right to impose such costs on people? Why does your love of air bags trump the right of other people to weigh the pros and cons (which in addition to the costs includes potential physical risk, even death) and make their own choice? What gives you the right to make other people pay for the “safety” features you think they should have – and so they’ll be “more affordable” … for you?

        Why can’t you live your life the way you see fit – and let other people do the same?

        The sick irony is that you think I’m the arrogant one! Yet I’m the one who respects other people’s choices – and who isn’t constantly trying to force them to do what I think they should do. Also, note that I have never suggested I hope that physical harm comes to you – while you have repeatedly expressed the hope that I will die or be hurt. Again, very revealing as far as the psychology of the typical Clover. When you can’t convince people to do as you think they should by reasoned argument that leads to voluntary consent, you resort to force – and wish death upon those who simply disagree with you and want only to be left in peace and freedom. I can’t think of a more un-American mindset. But it is a very Soviet (or Nazi) mindset; just the type of mentality we need for a Vozhd – or Fuhrer. Which is what you crave above all else.

        PS: I agree with Dom. We welcome differing opinions here, so long as they are intelligent opinions, supported by facts and argued logically. But your posts are none of those things. They’re robotic, reflexive – and usually incoherent – idolatry of “the law” (no matter what the law happens to be) and anal tongue probing of every “plan” to “help” other people – whether they want your “help” or not!

  5. fenimore neon
    January 23, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    keys: there are 7 billion people on the planet, all still having kids for some reason, as though there is limitless room for everyone on earth. kids grow up to pay taxes, which,as you can see the government spends so efficiently. but thats the reason for the safety and the laws and the call for “full employment,” so everyone can pay their taxes, so the government can waste it better than we could ourselves if we just kept it and spent it as we pleased. f$$$ing sheep! screw kids. more abortions.

    • dom
      January 23, 2011 at 11:36 pm

      It’s like an overgrown ant farm! Only difference being with an ant farm the caretaker would provide more input by way of space and food. With the human farm we don’t get provided more of anything except taxes/fines/laws.

      Damn, how could I forget! We get more Clovers too!

    • January 24, 2011 at 5:40 pm

      Yes. The worst aspect is the dysgenic, dystopic breeding patterns that have erupted as a result of such things as a system that protects and rewards the least intelligent and least independent-minded to breed like rats while discouraging the intelligent and independent from doing so. For example, there is no disincentive for ghetto blacks, Turd World illegal aliens and white trash to reproduce. They get foo’ stamps and heaf cay-uh… provided by the ever-increasing tax burden on the intelligent and responsible, who either don’t have kids or have fewer because they do the math and know they can’t afford it. And they can’t afford it because of welfare and foo’ stamps and heaf cay-uh for the swarming, writhing mass of human debris out there. I agree. More abortions. And more sterilization, too. Want foo’ stamps? Heaf cay-uh? The condition is you get your tubes tied first. No more 75 IQ babies… who grow up to produce more 75 IQ babies….

      • babydriver
        January 27, 2011 at 6:05 pm

        Sorry folks but abortion is murder, plain and simple.
        While I agree wholeheartedly about the welfare issues, killing innocent life is not the way to solve anything.
        I have 4 kids myself and never a food stamp wanted or needed.
        The clovers made public assistance so easy to get and so comprehensive that lowlifes have plenty of kids and more taxpayer money.

        Now, I could go for a sterilization mandate after the new mother first applies for welfare. But truly, this is one area where disincentives would be helpful. Really, if there was NO welfare, how many of these idiots would continue to have kids?

        • January 28, 2011 at 1:37 pm

          I have no issue with people having kids if they don’t use the government to make me support their kids. I would like to see welfare benefits made conditional on chemical or physical sterilization. To paraphrase an old Supreme Court justice, “three generations of imbeciles is enough.”

  6. fenimore neon
    January 25, 2011 at 1:57 am

    children. laws. health care. food stamps. sheep. …but the problem will not go away, as more services increase, “more rights” for everyone, more taxation…more and more people will realize the only thing left for them is to have children, and then those children are left to the government to teach what is right and wrong, good and bad, etc. And as those people grow up that is what their mind, their so-called “thought-process” consists in…what governmental schooling has taught them. yet when their mind is made of reactions to the extremely basic problems of society, then there is no need for REAL THINKING…which consists in actual problem-solving, logic, weighing of the whole picture as well as the narrow picture.
    it is like when a nine year old gets shot in arizona…and the news says she had decided she wanted to “help people” in her future…and then everyone thinks that its a shame that she never got to fulfill her wishes…”that she never got a chance”…the chiiiiildrennnn!!!…like seriously…can anyone tell the future…and ask any kid nowadays…they all get the same propgandistic education…they all think they wanna help people in the future and “save the earth” (whatever saving the earth means anyways).
    its really pathetic…in a world devoid of meaning nowadays…in so many ways…where everything comes down to jobs and money and laws…i tell you…the world could really use a good cleansing…a good black plague…a good elimination of 6 or so billion peeps!

    • dom
      January 25, 2011 at 3:18 am

      “the world could really use a good cleansing”

      Interesting..

  7. January 25, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Can’t say I disagree.

    As Dom says, it’s an ant farm – only worse, because ants have no potential to be more than ants while humans – some of them – have the capability to be more than automatons.

    I was reading once about Napoleon and he said (words to the effect) that only a small elite of humanity were capable of living in freedom. He was referring to people who don’t need “the law” (or “the Lord”) to prevent them from killing, stealing, robbing and so on. The rest, he felt, were cattle who needed the lash.

    The older I get, the more I agree with Napoleon.

    Just read Clover’s posts to get a flavor of the Modern Mindset; the veneration of “the law,” the worship of authority and the lust to “help people.”

    If it were 1750, I’d light out for the Frontier. But where can you go today?

    • Olaf Koenders
      December 19, 2012 at 6:33 am

      The older I get, the more I agree with Napoleon..

      If you don’t get grumpier as you get older, you haven’t been paying attention.. ;)

    • December 19, 2012 at 10:20 am

      Dear Eric,

      I’ve been debating the Newton Massacre online with some mainstream academics of my acquaintance over the past few days, so I know exactly the sense of exasperation you must be feeling.

      Actually I flatter them. I’ve been arguing the merits of widespread gun ownership, pointing out the powerful deterrent effect of having lots of guns everywhere.

      The mainstream academics have been parroting Hizzoner Michael Bloomberg and company.

      As Jean Paul Sartre bitterly noted:

      “L’enfer, c’est les autres,” usually translated as “Hell is other people.”

      Les autres he was referring to would probably more accurately be described as clovers, or at best sheeple.

      Interestingly enough Sartre began as a Marxist, but ended his life as an anarchist. I guess enduring all those clovers for a lifetime was enough to turn at least one Marxist into an anarchist.

  8. fenimore neon
    January 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    ive been saying that forver…”where can you go today?” and i believe that is exactly what makes this world a prison…no longer metaphorically. i dont want to be here with THESE people. I love earth, its many wonders, creatures, possibilities…but the people…well,theyre really only that…a people…considered only in the plural, since they lack any individual characterisitcs…they breed and are automatons, and they bore me…but where else to go? their stench reaches everywhere. they are killing everything on this planet with their order–the creativity, the other animals, oxygen, water, on and on…its all dying…everything that is awesome on this planet WILL die…except for what really must die…and that is billions of people.
    why do they get to make me want to go somewhere else anyways?
    i was talking to my dad yesterday about taxes on cars that have to be paid at the dmv…and how ridiculous taxes are nowadays since no one can responsibly spend tax money anyway, so why pay it…and he said all the things you outlined above….there must be laws…god said you must pay taxes in that…”you must give caesar what is caesar’s,” we must trust our representatives, we must vote to make changes, there isn’t propaganda here in america, and of course my favorite sheep saying…”if you don;t like it, you can get out!!”
    its amazing really how the media, schooling, PROGRESS, have all brainwashed everyone into not seeing reality for what it actually is.
    and if i was a feeling automaton…maybe even i would shed a tear and think it was sad for what this world has turned into…a vast wasteland…where a bunch of fat-assed zombies exist…that need to have their heads blown off. time to rid the earth of these body snatchers.

    • January 25, 2011 at 8:01 pm

      Again – amen!

      Our system is ingenious – in an evil genius way – in that it systematically turns most people into cattle, or creates more people that are cattle-like in their herd instinct desire to conform at almost any price.

      The economics of our system make it virtually impossible for 99 percent of people to ever escape wage-debt-tax servitude. As an example, one can never really own land – even the very affluent – since the system requires a perpetual mortgage payment to it in the form of property taxes that, in effect turn us all into squatters – or renters, at best. This destroys the old concept of a freeman, beholden to none on his own land.

      Each passing decade – each year – the cords of the collective hive bind a little tighter; there’s less and less room for (and less tolerance of) individual action, the use of intelligence and judgment.

      The likes of Clover likes this very much. It’s for our collective good – and he just wants to “help” us…

      • Mithrandir
        January 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm

        “As an example, one can never really own land”

        I find property tax to be very annoying.
        I would like to have another way of paying for local government services that did not rely on property taxes. Here in NJ, many seniors have left their home since they can no longer afford the property taxes (among the many other taxes and cost of living) on their house and property.

        A consumption tax could make some sense in some cases. For example — a tax on diapers, school supplies and other child related items to help pay for local schools. If you have no reason to purchase these items then you do not pay the tax on these items.

        It will take someone more creative than me to make a workable system that eliminates property taxes.

        At the very least, there should not be property taxes on your primary residence.

        • January 27, 2011 at 4:59 pm

          Me too.

          Your solution is pretty smart, by the way! It would place the burden for schools where it belongs – on those who decide to have children.

          Maybe I’m just mean-spirited, but I have never understood why someone else’s decision to reproduce is an automatic claim on my resources. Or anyone else’s. If you decide to have kids, great – good for you. But just like deciding to have a dog or assuming any other responsibility, the responsibility is yours, not that of others. If you aren’t ready – and able – to provide for a child, to feed it, house it, educate it, etc. – then don’t have kids.

          What have now is another entitlement sickness: I’m entitled to have kids (and someone else – “the community” – is responsible for providing schools, health care, etc.

          In addition to being wrong, morally – this also creates a dysgenic society in which the less irresponsible and less intelligent reproduce (and in greater numbers) while the more intelligent and responsible don’t – or have fewer offspring – because they’re already burdened by the taxes, etc. that go to finance the offspring of the less intelligent and less responsible.

          • Mithrandir
            January 27, 2011 at 8:06 pm

            Thanks. I can not take credit for the idea. I forget where I heard about this idea. I am not sure if this type of consumption tax can be used as the sole means for supporting (education in this case) different types of programs and institutions. I do think it can help make the programs more self sustaining.

            I do think that some things are worthwhile for a society as a whole to fund. The question in my opinion is how to fund it.

            National defense and infrastructure (Roads, bridges, rail, shipping, etc.) are two vital items in my opinion. Healthcare for all is nice to have, but I am unsure of how to fund it without bankrupting the system.

            Education is important in my opinion, but there must be a better way to fund it and a more cost effective way to deliver it. I have more comments on education, but this is not the place to discus it.

        • Brent P
          January 29, 2011 at 10:50 pm

          Many consider property taxes to be a tool of social engineering. They believe that through the taxes on property they can force old people out of their larger homes and into smaller ones so younger people with kids can then move into the bigger house.

          It’s all part of the control freak plan to make us into human resources.

          Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed that life in the US in general has become like life in the government schools? Rules are set up for the slowest ship in the fleet. If one person is too dumb to do something safely it’s banned. Anyone who shows better than ‘average’ ability is pounded down until he stops ‘showing off’. It’s as if all of society is being legislated as if it were a big classroom. I bring it up because driving is chock full of lowest common denominator laws.

        • clover
          February 12, 2011 at 12:57 am

          Consumption tax will never pass because there are too many lower income people that would be hit by it and it would not be politically correct. I do like it better than property tax though. I believe most taxes should be income taxes to be more fair. It does not make any sense to make someone that makes the same amount of money as someone else but pays a lot more taxes because he bought property instead of buying cars and going on vacations.

          • February 12, 2011 at 9:46 pm

            There should be no taxes on income or real property; both are direct assaults on liberty and incompatible with a free society. Whatever funds the government requires for its legitimate functions (e.g., maintenance of courts/rule of law; national defense) could be funded through corporate taxes/tariffs – as intended by the founding fathers. The income tax has given enormous power to the government and it has (of course) abused that power. It has created a system of reciprocal parasitism that pits individual against individual, group against group – all the while creating a large and ever-increasing parasite class (government “workers”) that feed off the system.

            Property taxes are an outrage because they make property ownership impossible. No American can ever hope to own their land/home, free and clear – beholden to none. Instead, they have the illusion of ownership, which continues only so long as the “owner” continues to pay rent (property tax) to the government.

          • dom
            February 13, 2011 at 3:27 am

            There is nothing that can be done to change it?

          • February 13, 2011 at 10:34 am

            Nothing is forever – including our current system. 100 years ago, there was no personal income tax or taxes on real estate. Who knows what the future may hold…

            I think there are many millions of people who are not only getting sick of being milked by the government but who have also awakened to the immorality of our system. Left-liberals like to posture as good-intentioned people who only want to “help” others. But their “help” always comes at bayonet-point and it is always provided by other people. Mean old Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that charity – helping others – is only meaningful in a moral sense when it is freely given. Forcing Jones to “help” Smith is a perversion of morality. It destroys human goodwill because we all come to view one another as potential leeches, who are going to “vote” to take away our money or our rights. Democracy is shit – a despicable con. And it is not what this country was supposed to be.

            The Tea Party movement has been useful in that it has gotten people thinking along these lines again for the first time in many decades.

            So also authors like Tom DiLorenzo, who are telling the truth about the War of Northern Aggression and what it was really all about – and what it means for us, today.

            So, progress is happening…

    • babydriver
      January 27, 2011 at 7:09 pm

      WOW,
      Eric, Fenimore, You folks make a grave mistake when you blame, dismiss, or denigrade God. Don’t want to believe what people tell you about the written Word of the Bible? Fine, but you really should know what the Bible itself says rather than put too much consideration into what people say it says.

      I wonder how many people hate God, not for what God did or said, but because of what people say God did or said, or what people did or said in the name of God.

      Think about it. Jesus Christ did no one any harm, and told His followers to do no harm, yet how many millions have been murdered in his name?

      And now here we have some folks advocating the destruction (abortion, plague) of how many people and for what? You think 7 billion people are too many? Come get a look at the 11 western states, they are mostly empty. Global warming? Balderdash. Can’t grow enough food? Balderdash.

      If we think we don’t have enough to go around it is only because there is too much indirection of efforts. Too much is wasted on ‘air bags’ antilock brakes and the like, and welfare ad nauseum.

      Mankind causes his own problems. Just look at what our once free nation has become to prove my point.

      • January 28, 2011 at 1:28 pm

        But who is God (if such a being even exists)? My position is that no human being can say he knows anything about such a being. It is all subjective conjecture based on arbitrary assertions. My “holy book” (or priest) says so. Other holy books and priests are wrong. Etc.

        I’ve read the Bible cover to cover several times; also other religious texts. Much of it is ridiculous – outright gibberish. Hebediah begat Eukanuba and his days were 999 and three-score years…. But the main thing is there’s no more proof that the Christian God is the God than there is proof the Muslim God is the God or the Hindu God or the Sun God or the Greek pantheon or the Mormons’ God or the Hale Bop Comet God…. It’s all completely arbitrary and subjective.

        As far as population/people: I agree with the Jeffersonian idea that too many people always leads to less and less freedom. It is almost an axiom. When a country has a low population density, there’s less social friction – hence fewer laws and less government. People can go their own way and thus conflicts are lessened. But once things begin to get crowded, conflicts grow more frequent and intense. Then people demand “laws” and “action.” Cost of living goes up; quality of life goes down. Freedom and liberty wane.

        Do we really need or want another 100 million people here? Another billion Chinese and Indians?

  9. kman
    January 27, 2011 at 11:57 am

    It all boils down to, Personal responsibility and assumption of risk. Your’e either for it or against it.
    K-

    • January 27, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      Yes – exactly!

      Clovers, on the other hand, think they should be the arbiters of “appropriate” or “safe” amounts of risk for everyone else – and the enforcers of laws compelling obedience to their subjective value judgments.

      Buckle-up! Wear a helmet! Buy insurance! Heaf cay-uh “reform”! Etc.

      What I’d really like is to see the tables turned. I once actually talked my way out of a “buckle up” ticket by asking the cop whether he eats his veggies. I then asked him if he thought he should be subjected to fines and harassment if he doesn’t. He actually saw the point and we ended up bullshitting about politics for awhile before he let me go on my way.

  10. fenimore neon
    January 29, 2011 at 6:26 am

    god? by the way im with kman exactly. but really? god? 4 kids really babydriver? against abortion? what do you care. seriously. this planet CANNOT support more than one billion people, efficiently. for there to be as many people as there are now on the planet…other beings must die. lions, sharks, birds, trees, etc. human beings are in no way the best beings here on this planet. its called having an equilibrium. the planet has an equilibrium. its past its equilibrium, and now everything else is dying so that humans may live here. but in order for there to be 7 billion people here, they must follow an order as well. thats why this is referred to as an organized society. rules. laws. more rules. more laws. eco-this. save the planet that. the planet doesn’t need saving. human consumer life does.
    get rid of 6 billion people, and we can light gasoline fires everywhere and the atmosphere doesnt get messed up. get rid of 6 billion people and animal life and plant life flourishes. get rid of 6 billion people and there’s no longer welfare. get rid of 6 billion people and only the strong survive. get rid of 6 billion people and hopefully the internet and television disappears too…
    get rid of 6 billion people….and life is good.

    • January 29, 2011 at 10:51 am

      There may be a god; that is – a being/intelligence outside of what we perceive to be ordinary nature/existence. I won’t rule it out entirely because, to my mind, we don’t have – and can’t get – the information to make the call. It is possible, I’ll admit that much – because our awareness, intelligence, perceptions and so on are limited. We see through a glass darkly. I have no issue with people allowing the possibility; along with a general spiritualism, if you like.

      What I can’t abide is certainty when it comes to religion because that seems to me to be impossible by any fair-minded, reasonable and logical standard. How do you know “Jesus is lord”? By reading the Bible? By listening to a preacher? Because you “believe”? Because you “have faith? Well, the Muslim bases his beliefs on the same things, as do believers in every other religious system. And none can claim more validity than the others. They’re all human-based constructs built on assertions without proof – at least, not proof in the sense of objectively verifiable, evidence-supported facts that cannot be disputed regardless of one’s opinion. For example, “two plus two equals four.” It’s a statement of fact that you can’t disagree with (unless you’re innumerate), that transcends opinion or faith. “Jesus is lord,” on the other hand, has no more value than “I am ze Emperor Napoleon reincarnated!” OK, if you say so. (But I think you’re nuts.)

      Religious certainty is a form of dementia that particularly afflicts Americans – a majority of whom are fervently religious. They “know” God and have a “personal relationship” with Jesus. Uh huh. Sure you do. And I see dead people….

  11. Brent P
    January 29, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    There is a reason to slow down to the school zone speed limit when it seems nonsensical to do so: The cops and their revenue machine. The cop has to make his quota er performance objective and the traffic court judge needs to keep the money rolling in. The end result is that it doesn’t matter that there are no kids around, the law is the law. Thankfully Illinois school zone signs still say: ‘on school days when children are present’. I figure it’s only a matter of time before the idiotic timer controlled ones make it here.

    What really gets me is that many school buses give kids driveway service these days… and the parents… kid sits in mom’s SUV until the bus comes to a complete stop. The kid then gets his crap together and says good by to mom, siblings, and dog. This takes awhile. The kid boards a bus and we continue to wait as the kid finds a seat and a place for his crap. Then and only then does the bus door close and the bus get moving. The late bus for HS kids will stop at one drive way then go two houses down and stop to let off the next teenager. all of it on main roads people have to use to get to and from work.

    • jaxvid
      February 6, 2011 at 5:42 am

      Brent, I’m with you, I have the same issue every morning. What the heck is with stopping at every house? Free taxi service? No wonder every school system in the country is going broke. I also do not understand why a parent has to sit in a running car at the end of their driveway for 20 minutes with the kid when they are 10 minutes from the school!!!! Drive the kid to school for crying out loud! You’re already in the car!

      One kid that gets picked up by my local bus driver is handicapped, and the driver has to pull into their driveway and negotiate a difficult back up and turn around to collect the kid at the door and then get out. The parents are sitting around yawning all the while, not that they couldn’t drive the kid to school themselves, no that would be too much work.

      Yes school zones are speed traps. What kids are walking to school nowadays anyway? They all get driven right to the door by either bus or parent and if they ever go out to play they stay in fenced in lots, safe from all of the boogie men there parents feel are after their kids.

      Concerning overpopulation, in america and europe the population among natives is steady with little increase (mostly due to increased life spans) the WHOLE problem in western (white) societies is caused by immigrant growth, ie too many coming in, and too many having third world family formations. End immigration to 1st world countries (white countries) and you will end overpopulation there. Of course overpopulation will still occur in 3rd world countries but they have some of the remedies wished by the cheerful fellow above, famine, pestilence, disease, and other happy stuff.

  12. JAlanKatz
    February 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *