Speed limits and Limited Government: Unlimited Nonsense

By
eric
-
128
16810
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I view speed limits much as I do “limited” government. . .radar trap pic

Throw ’em both in the woods!

The premise underlying each is absurd. And imposing the absurd using violence?

That’s just nuts

Why should anyone be subject to punishment merely for driving “x” speed? Is it not of a piece with punishing someone for merely consuming alcohol? (Or merely possessing some arbitrarily decreed-to-be-illegal plant matter?)

The “might cause harm!” cry of Clovers (EPautos’ house term for authoritarian statists) is immeasurably dangerous because there is no end to it; nothing potentially beyond its reach. Kind of like “limited” government – which inevitably accepts no limits whatsoever on the power it wields.

Let the standard be harmed caused – and you’ve established an objective limit beyond which force may not be applied against any person. Only those who have caused harm need sweat being punished. Those who have not caused harm are free. At liberty to go about their lives.

Doesn’t that strike you as both fair – and sensible?speed trap 2

Imagine: The only people having to worry about cops or facing a judge would be those charged with tangibly causing harm to an actual victim or actual property owned by someone else. There would be an end to this byzantine – and cynical – business of people being put through the system who know they’ve done no harm to anyone – and who quite rightly feel no moral guilt – yet who are nonetheless punished for their manufactured offenses against the state.

Do you feel guilty of wrongdoing when pulled over by a cop for not wearing a seatbelt? For driving some arbitrary number above an arbitrarily posted number? Or do you feel disgust, anger – and resentment? Even Clovers should realize the dangerous cynicism their system cultivates. People lose respect for “the law” (venerated by Clovers) because the laws are obviously just random rules made by men – not revealed truths descended from heaven. These rules, being the product (at best) of the imperfect judgments of men, are often obviously silly (e.g., the “Drive 55” campaign of the ’70s and ’80s) and their enforcement an affront to common sense as well as common decency. It being indecent to hold people up at gunpoint and mulct them for money, using transparently ridiculous “violations” as the pretext for this robbery.

Speed limits as such – as enforceable mandates – ought to be thrown in the woods. For the same reason we’d (well, most of us but perhaps not Clover) would laugh at the idea of laws punishing people for running “too fast” or bench-pressing “excessive” weight. Some people are better at certain things than others. And other people are worse at them. Imposing arbitrary, one-size-fits-all limits on anyone for anything is just that – arbitrary. And that which is arbitrary is by definition unfair.

At least, when it is artificial.radar trap molestor

Nature is arbitrary – but there is no point in railing against the inequity of getting cancer. But getting a traffic ticket, that’s another thing.

Clovers want anticipatory and pre-emptive laws. That is, laws that assume something bad will happen (or is apt to happen) if  “x” is not punished. And which punish the “offender” as if something bad had actually happened. Innocence of having caused harm is no defense. The absence of any victim is not exculpatory. It’s not even necessary for the government to assert (much less prove) that anyone was harmed. Merely that “the law” was not obeyed is sufficient.

Thus, it is “illegal” (and a punishable offense) to possess pot because (so the theory goes) someone (a generality) might commit some (unspecified) harm after having smoked pot, or because the person from whom one bought the pot might have also sold pot to little kids. That you – the “offender” – have caused no harm to anyone is immaterial.

And so it goes by the side of the road. And in court. And when reading your just-“adjusted” car insurance premium.

Clovers wail that, absent speed limits, people will drive excessively fast and lose control. Yet they do exactly that already, speed limits notwithstanding. The difference between my approach and the Cloverfied approach is that I’d only demand those who actually lose control – for whatever reason – be held responsible for whatever harm they cause. Think about it. Are you any less injured if the person who wasn’t paying attention let a wheel dip onto the shoulder, then over-corrected, lost control and veered across the double yellow into your car wasn’t “speeding“? And – conversely – how have you been injured by the driver – in full control of his vehicle – who just passed you safely doing 10 MPH above the PSL?chuck Norris

There is nothing wrong with speed advisories – signage indicating that (as an example) there is a curve ahead that those unfamiliar with it might want to slow down for. Drivers who don’t know that road – and who’ve never driven that curve before – may find this helpful. But it is ridiculous to punish the local who is familiar with that road – and who drives that curve everyday – for taking it at the speed he’s comfortable taking it.

Assuming, of course, he does so without causing harm to anyone in the process.

That was once the American Way. The implicit zeitgeist of the republic. Not “do as you please” – the dishonest, demagogic bleat of Clovers. But rather, do as you please, so long as you don’t cause harm to others.

The false choice offered by Clovers is total control in exchange for total safety – the “risk free” world. But this is a quixotic quest that can never end, because risk cannot be removed from this life. What can be excised, however, is the risk to our liberties, our peace of mind, our enjoyment of life – presented by random and arbitrary interferences – and punishments – based not on what we’ve done, but on what “someone” might do.

If you’ve enjoyed or found useful (hopefully, both!) what you’ve found here, please support EPautos.com. Your $5, $10 or $20 will help keep the wheels turning. 

Our donate button is here.epautos_logo

If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

Related posts:
  1. Speed Limits Back to Where They Were in 1970!
  2. The Speed Limit Cargo Cult
  3. Government Will Never Be Limited
  4. Does “Speed” Really “Kill”?
  5. Speed Limiters, Too?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

128 COMMENTS

    • Dear Phil,

      Left a comment:

      Bevin Chu
      1 second ago – Shared publicly

      KAFKAESQUE: of, relating to, or suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings; especially : having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality

      “Kafkaesque” doesn’t begin to describe this moral outrage. Yet such incidents are no longer isolated. The fact that they can be exposed on a daily basis proves that they have become routine in today’s American police state.

    • Definitely! All Grigg’s posts are good. Some are merely better than others.

      Critics who couch their criticisms of government abuses in wishy washy terms tick me the hell off.

      Grigg is not guilty of that. He exhibits the proper degree of moral outrage.

      • @Bevin- What qualifies as being wishy washy?

        There’s a time for harshness yes, but there’s also a time for diplomacy so long as said diplomacy doesn’t involve a compromise on core values. I think both Ron Paul and Larken Rose have important roles in the liberty movement, despite different styles.

    • They may want to restrict who can see the data, but want to bet that the gunvermin remain on the list of those allowed?

  7. I agree with you that no action should be a crime unless harm was done. People have a hard time with this–such as, “how could you let someone off who shoots into a crowd?” If he didn’t hurt anyone, so what? There is still a deterrent effect, for he would likely hit someone if he were to try it again.

    Insofar as speeding tickets are not criminal (I recognize sometimes they are, to which I say, see above for such cases), I have often thought they should borrow from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Crimes under the “General Article” (Article 134, UCMJ) all require, in addition to the normal elements of proof for the specific offense, that the crime be shown to also be “service discrediting” or “prejudicial to good order and discipline.” In the case of a speeding violation, any police officer must prove the speed was excessive for the conditions. It should never be enough to merely establish that the “speeder” was exceeding a posted limit. Sometimes, these limits are absurdly low.

    • The NAP prohibits aggressive violence or the THREAT of violence. I would say that someone who shoots into a crowd has threatened violence.

      • Agreed. But are you suggesting this necessarily means that the person may be held criminally liable? Or does it merely give rise to defending oneself, for example.

        If I fired a shot into a crowd and you happened to be in the crowd, it’s likely reasonable for you to find yourself threatened with violence and defend yourself. But because I haven’t harmed anyone, if nobody harmed me in their defense and I walked away, that would be the end of it.

        • The very term ‘criminally liable’ posits the existence of gunvermin persecution [sic] of persons committing various acts.
          Also, even the US used to acknowledge the idea of “mens rea” – that without the INTENT to commit crime, there was no crime, although there might be a tort, where the victim brings civil action. In an anarchist or even minarchist, this would not need to be done through gunvermin courts.

    • Dear CC,

      Also, “shooting into a crowd” strongly suggests a “public” venue under our current mixed economy framework.

      In a purely market anarchist society, there would only be private venues, no “public” venues whatsoever.

      Whoever owned the private venue in which some irresponsible person “shot into a crowd” would be answerable to him or her. House rules.

      • Yes, Bevin–agreed!

        This is the fallacy of the idea the yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is an exception to the First Amendment freedom of speech.

        A theater is a private establishment. If you yell “Fire” for no legitimate reason, you likely will be violating the terms of your agreement with the theater owner and can be held accountable. It is an issue of property rights and has nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment.

    • CRUSTY, “…that the crime be shown to also be ‘service discrediting’ or “prejudicial to good order and discipline.’”

      I would very strongly argue against using the UCMJ as a model for how laws should work.

      The military is the very essence of Cloverism uber alles and as such “service discrediting” and “prejudicial to good order and discipline” are ambiguous catchalls for the clovers in government approved costumes.

      Let us not bring such ideas into “civilian” law making.

      • skunkbear,

        My post was hastily written–and it shows. My apologies.

        All I intended to say is that we borrow the idea, from the UCMJ, of adding an additional requirement in order to successfully fine someone for speeding.

        Under the UCMJ, for example, if you want to convict someone of adultery, you must not only prove the standard elements of adultery (i.e., engaged in extramarital sex), but you must also prove that the adulterous conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or somehow discredited the service in the eyes of the public. A person cannot be convicted of adultery in the military MERELY because that person engaged in extramarital sex.

        I think this is a good thing. Borrowing this procedure and applying it to speeding, we should never be able to fine someone for speeding unless the officer can demonstrate that, in addition to exceeding some arbitrarily posted speed limit, the speed was unsafe for the conditions.

        • You make several very solid points, CC.

          I especially agree with:

          “… we should never be able to fine someone for speeding unless the officer can demonstrate that, in addition to exceeding some arbitrarily posted speed limit, the speed was unsafe for the conditions.”

          That is, proof of some tangible, imminent danger to actual potential victims.

          This would address the “driving 80 MPH through a suburban neighborhood” shibboleth that’s often trotted out by Clovers.

          • Eric spaeking-“I especially agree with:

            “… we should never be able to fine someone for speeding unless the officer can demonstrate that, in addition to exceeding some arbitrarily posted speed limit, the speed was unsafe for the conditions.”

            That is, proof of some tangible, imminent danger to actual potential victims.

            This would address the “driving 80 MPH through a suburban neighborhood” shibboleth that’s often trotted out by Clovers.”

            Personally I would be perfectly in accord with that mode of dealing with speeders as I pointed out in virtually every exchange regarding speed limits I ever had with you.

            • I didn’t realize that, Mike.

              As I recall, your position was that in some cases, speed as such was sufficient to establish tangible/imminent harm.

              I’d need for the cop/court to establish that (to cite some examples): The driver/rider was not in full control of his vehicle; that he narrowly missed hitting someone (or something). Things like that. Otherwise – absent such factors – all we have is mere velocity.

              And that – alone – is does not rise to the level of crime, as I see it. Because no proof has been submitted that an innocent person was directly/imminently threatened with harm.

              • 80 mph down a winding residential street would rather obviously be too fast for conditions- kids at play, cars on both curbs. If you can’t stop that car in 20 ft there is a problem.

                Almost 120 feet/sec. Kids bike appears in front of you. What distance would it take you to stop from 80mph? Up over the curb is not an acceptable alternative.

                • Ah, but what if there is no kid around?

                  Also, consider: A Clover – addled, slow-reflexed – might take longer to bring his car to a stop than an attentive, non-addled driver driving much faster.

                  This is why I argue for the “harm caused” (or at least, demonstrably and imminently threatened) standard. Guy squeals around a corner and narrowly avoids hitting a kid – ok, that’s arguably actionable. But no kid? Why would it be actionable?

                  I can’t justify punishing people based on hypotheticals, especially when they’re remote hypotheticals.

                • Context, MFW, context.

                  As usual, you are thinking inside the box. You are talking about a clover context with conventional monopolistic government and “public” streets.

                  Under free market anarchism, with no government, private property owners would establish “house rules” for their communities.

                  Streets would be subject to the same rules that the commons areas such as elevator lobbies and hallways are in condominium complexes.

                  There would be order and safety without arbitrary and often irrational clover “laws.”

                  • and under a neighborhood covenant there is not the slightest chance you would be allowed to drive 80mph down a winding residential street.

                    • Which of course proves that under free market anarchism, reasonable private sector rules (as opposed to arbitrary goonvermin laws) would prevail.

                      You just validated a non-governmental solutions to a social problem.

                • Forget the emotional BS attached.

                  “Kids bike appears”

                  Um, is it ‘legal’ for a kid to appear in the road? Is it ‘legal’ for parents to let their kid play on the road? Forget legal, how about sensible or ‘thinking of the children’? What idiot lets their child play in the road without them knowing cars are big, heavy and will kill them dead (or worse) if they defy one at any speed, right of way or not?

                  What if the kid is run over at the posted speed limit because he ‘appears’ out of nowhere? Even at 15mph, 1/2 second reaction, perfect 15-20% slip braking, ~11 feet. Is it OK to run over them slowly? Or maybe only for 4 or 5 feet before stopping?

                  What about adults? If an adult steps in front of a car with right of way, on a road, regardless of speed, who is at fault? Do the rules change for children?

    • Crusty, that’s what speed signs in Tx are, suggestions. You can be ticketed for going slower or faster. It’s easy to get off with a lawyer. This isn’t what some of us would like but it’s better than being the “hard and fast” law of many states.

    • Interesting comment. So how is speeding a crime? No one hurt? And it’s still a crime? Cruising down the interstate yesterday(if you can believe hustling an 18 wheeler is cruising)I saw a car coming fast, and it was time for lights but he had his off since it wasn’t completely dark. I used to do this too in times of speed need. Another car, a Bimmer, did the same thing right after. And a Honda was following that car with lights on. Somehow, I didn’t feel injured. I saw no nearly misses or anything else. All I saw was people taking the time of the day when all the pigs were porking out to get some serious speed time in. Looked enjoyable to me. Esp, since my truck has a got damned speed limiter…..grrrrrr

      • According to my def., speeding in and of itself cannot be a crime, because it is not immoral. Reckless driving, now that is a different case. But Clover is dead wrong to assert that you are being reckless JUST because you are going faster than some arbitrarily selected number on a sign.

        • Exactly, Phillip.

          If one is driving erratically, obviously not in control of the vehicle, nearly striking other vehicles or pedestrians, etc. – that qualifies as reckless driving. But is it “reckless” merely to drive “x” speed?

          Not by any reasonable standard, in my opinion.

          Virginia’s statute is a case in point. It defines exceeding any posted speed limit by more than 20 MPH (or driving 80 MPH or more anytime, anywhere) as “reckless” driving.

          Extremely punitive sanctions apply.

          It’s grotesque, vicious.

          The speed limit on most VA Interstates, for instance, is 70 MPH. So one is in peril of a “reckless driving” cite for doing 80 in a 70. Just 10 MPH over the PSL – and perhaps 5 MPH faster than the flow of traffic.

  9. Hi Eric.

    Your point that Clovers yearn for anticipatory legal action underscores the pure sadism that infects them.

    Clover activists throughout history have singled out groups of individuals whose recreational activities they hate (while alcoholics and drug addicts are very unpopular, Clovers will also attack gun owners, hunters, fisherman, and probably anything else you can think of). Clovers wrongly blame the entire group for the actions of its individuals. Then activists do what activists do: they appeal to the most powerful tool at their disposal (government) to stamp out the activities of the entire group, regardless of the peaceful actions of its individuals.

    The point is that Clovers hate. They are petty and vengeful. They hate the freedoms that others enjoy and hate the individuals enjoying those freedoms. Having groups around that are popular (or at least societally acceptable to despise) and using law and government to crush those individuals within them just makes it easier for Clovers to fulfill these fantasies.

    I think that this is one of the things that makes Clovers so unreasonable. It’s next to impossible to sway the opinion of a hater.

    • Hi JRO,

      I agree – that’s it, exactly. They are motivated by hate. Of freedom. It suffuses their being. A cursory read-through of the posts of the Clovers here will make the point better than I can.

      Their sickness is the desire to control others. Most of them, though, are physical cowards – and thus, they are very frustrated. Until along came the state. Now they have the means to impose their will – to vent their control freak fetish without – so they believe – any physical risk to themselves.

      Of course, they never realize – even after it’s too late – that they have signed their own death warrants, too. The uber Clovers (Stalin types) will just as eagerly fill the ditches with lesser Clovers as with liberty-minded people. Indeed, there are far fewer of us.

      And the ditches must be filled.

      • Well, it was that time of year again, Thanksgiving in Canada. Did the usual dinner with a dozen folks, eight who are people I only see once a year, at this event. These are ‘normal’ tax paying, law abiding, 2.5 kids and dog people. Teachers, retired folks, civil servants and a trucker.

        It is yearly opportunity to do my own ‘state of awareness’ study. Over the last seven years it has been quite revealing.

        First, the standard football state of affairs is discussed among the men with all intensely following the conversation as though the meaning of life was being revealed.

        Then, the ‘goddamned ragheads’, ‘kill them all’, ‘Muslims must be exterminated’, began. I swear a few of them were sporting wood as the brown-shirt wannabes continued whipping themselves into a murderous frenzy, spouting rote soundbites.

        Later, ‘that fucking commie psychopath Putin’, ‘he shot down that jet’, ‘he is the biggest threat to peace’……..

        So folks, I can tell you that this little experiment has showed some interesting and very disturbing changes in the group since seven years ago.

        Any question about why these folks believe what they are saying is met with hostility. To question their source is unacceptable. Seven years ago, while they were resistant, exploration of their reasoning path was tolerated. Today, not at all.

        Any suggestion that ‘their’ team (sports, gov, army, friend) does the same things they condemn in others is reacted to as treasonous. Besides, ‘they started it’ so it’s OK when we do it.

        There is no longer any depth of thinking, no questioning of ‘our’ teams motivation or morals. Nothing is investigated, the answers spoon fed by ‘God the TV’ are unquestionably the correct answers. Any contradictory views are immediately dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’, no further discussion supporting such theories will be accepted.

        It is the end of enlightenment. The average adult has the mentality of a spoiled, special-ed 8 year old. Welcome to the modern Dark Ages.

        Thumb out, looking for a ride off this rock too.

  10. I just had one of my taxi’s backed into a week ago by a guy who didn’t have insurance. The pig who came to the scene wrote the guy a ticket for no insurance. Who gets the money for that? The damn state, that’s who. If I want to get money out of the guy, it’s small claims court for me. If someone doesn’t even pay for liability insurance, what are the chances you get anything out of them from a court settlement? If they had anything, they’d probably pay $40-$50 a month for insurance.

    Anyone who believes the current system works is a damn idiot. It benefits me not in the least that the state gets more money. They can go after people for money forever because they suck money out of me to pursue people indefinitely. Great system, clovers!

    • Yup.

      Dude who ran a red light and tolaled my old Trans-Am (not the one I have now) had no insurance. “The law” didn’t prevent him from driving (or running the light) nor did it put any money in my pocket.

    • In Oz we don’t get fined for “no insurance”, probably because the insurance and registration are paid in the one bill. We do get fined for “unregistered”, which is crap because the car is still on the “register” at the roads office.

      In any case, the fine usually exceeds the rego/insurance renewal. Ask a cop or anyone how that’ll help you renew the rego especially if you’re poor thanks to taxes and they give you a blank look. It’s why I gave up on “their” system. Highway robbery for no benefit.

  11. “Let the standard be harmed caused”

    After harm is caused there is no going back, and while you can get monetary damages, you will never get 100% of your health back after an auto accident.

    The typical driver does not have the wealth to pay for an accident they cause, preventing them from having accidents is the only way. At this point you might bring up insurance. Assuming the person has insurance, the limits are probably like $10,000. Maybe $100,000. Very few people have substantial limits.

    As a quibble I have with libertarian types complaining about things like government speed limits but don’t seem to know what the libertarian plan is. If you read lewrockwell.com the plan is to privatize all roads and let the owners make the rules. How do you know that you would be allowed to drive on the newly privatized roads? Maybe the speed limit will be even lower? How the privatized roads would operate is unpredictable.

    • George, how does this work again? I got run over from behind at road construction July 23. i’ve been injured and suffer every minute but have not one cent to show from the insurance company of the driver at fault, nor any insurance company. I am currently paying my own way for doctors, CAT scans, MRI’s and neurosurgeons. So you think there’s not a better way? The company that owned that truck that driver used to run over me must have admitted fault since the trailer I was towing was paid for immediately. Think they don’t have something else in mind for me? How could any system be worse?

      I was immediately set on by everyone to sue sue sue. Well, Sue may be my only option yet but it’s not the way I wanted it to go. I would be happy just having the insurance company of the company at fault take care of medical bills. It wasn’t my truck, screw it, I didn’t like it anyway. I did like my semi-normal life before wreck though.

      I suspect a libertarian arbitrator would have something worked out for me by now or that insurance company’s insured would have to look for work in other parts and they’d pay big bucks for that to not happen. How many places can you get rich hauling frac sand? For the uninitiated, that would be sand to use in oil fracturing processes to retrieve previously unretrieveable petroleum, whether on an old well or new one. Without the process, new oil drilling would be sporadic at best. That’s a great deal of incentive to take care of their legal obligations wouldn’t you think? Bush and crew did a number on suits and money to be had or services provided thereof. And now BO continues that with protection for every industry not previously provided.

      But you think libertarian arbitration would not be effective? What would?

      • In the system we have the only thing that is going to work is suing. Either you do it or your insurance pays your claim then sues to get repaid.

        • I had to threaten once, I think the fact that you find out who on the other side is accountable for paying you what you request is a good wake up call for them.

          I was hit by a truck in Charlotte, NC with no driver in it a ways back. I was in a 94 Ford Aspire-ing to be a car, and a ’75 full size truck hit me in the front passenger side at a bout 15 mph.

          Looked to be only some paint on the truck, but the Aspire was fairly annihilated. After checking out my damage, I walked up to the truck to have a talk with the driver, and no one was there.

          I had to go up the hill to the truck stop and find the guy, shootin the breeze drinking coffee and let him know his truck he had left idling had gone all Stephen King on me, and I’d sure appreciate getting some info out of him, so this horror story doesn’t have a bad ending for me.

          I talked on the phone to the guys insurance and told him about my back, and mental anguish at being assaulted by a Ghost Truck and such.

          Of course he said “go get it checked, we’ll take care of it.” I was just saying things that sounded expensive to get him in the mood to cough up the dough and let me get on with repairs.

          I got a few estimates, the lowest was $7800, I think. I took their money for it, then found some good ol boy that put it back in running order for about $1500 cash, and pocketed the rest.

          I’ve always found a little janky body crumpling and paint mismatch to give a driver a bit of street cred. Something sorely needed when driving an Aspire, I can tell you.

            • It was crazy. At least the clown from It wasn’t involved.

              I too just posted something, with c l … and it just memory holed it.

              No moderation even. It just evaporated into the ether.

              nobody say the “c” word.

              I bet the same thing happens for – g i l – as well.

              Eric is blocking those two Stephen King Clowns for good reason. If you use those words, the cyber pitbulls come running and chew up whatever words you’re spewing without mercy.

              I wouldn’t want one of those two face painting psychopaths on my property. Why would Eric want them on his blog?

              But Tor, who will buiid the roads? I’m a millionaire, step into my van and I’ll show you my stock portfolio and balloon animals too.

              • Pit bulls again. jean and his 200 lb pit. Cholley jack, the nicest dog you’d ever want to meet is really getting worked over here. He’s 80 lbs so I guess he’s off the reservation so to speak. I have tried to call two pit bulls “American Staffordshire Terriers” but the sheeple don’t understand dog breeds.

                No mind though. Pits have been the mainstay for nearly 100 years on the farm and ranch. People depended on them to protect the kids and livestock and they have.

                Let’s just go ahead and put them in the same fold as cRap music and the people who go for it.

                As an aside, I’m guessing CJ would have about the same attitude for Crappers as he has for wild hogs. Oh well……..

        • I had a wreck several years ago while driving a borrowed car that turned out not to be insured. I had insurance, but my car was in the shop, which was the only reason I was driving the borrowed car. Even though there was a clause in my policy stating specifically that any vehicle I drove while my ‘insured’ vehicle was out of service, ‘my’ insurance company denied the claim. The guy I rear ended then sued me, and I had to hire a shyster to sue my insurance company.
          If we have to have insurance, why shouldn’t it be on the driver, not the vehicle?

    • There is no libertarian plan, that’s a contradiction in terms.
      There have been many ways to obtain roads over the millennia. The simplest way going forward would be to hold bids and let for profit entities bid on doing the work as they do now.

      But this time, they’re bidding to provide and maintain the roads on spec. They’re taking a gamble on being able to make a profit on these roads, and for it to be worth their while to provide an expensive good in the hopes of making a tidy profit down the road.

      Perhaps what they would be bidding on, would be exclusive ownership and command of their roads for 10 or 20 years only. Then the roads would revert to common property, and any new bid, would be only on improving and maintaining the existing roads.

      If no bids are forthcoming, here is one of the old ways to get roads: require “volunteers” who are drafted to provide the roads by the local authorities. (In a libertarian scenario, the authorities would probably be private for profit protection agencies.)

      Involuntary Servitude – Roads Without the State

      The most common early method of getting roads built was the corvée—a decree of the local court ordering all able-bodied men in an area to report with pick and shovel for a couple of days of local roadwork. The well-heeled were able to pay for substitutes to fill in for them.

      As trade developed further west, the attitude toward corvée changed because local people didn’t see why they should engage in forced road labor on behalf of distant interests. It was one thing to band together with immediate friends and neighbors for mutual benefit.

      But it was quite another matter to labor for the benefit of through traffic—commercial carriers or travelers from far away. Whenever the corvée was stretched to road improvements that benefited outsiders, it broke down.

      Three alternatives were available to corvée-maintained roads, alternatives that remain today: state-funded roads, nationally planned and funded roads, and private turnpikes. With this last alternative, investor-financed corporations would build and maintain a road based on user tolls.

      – We here at EPautos are not so sure we love corporations that much. Whoever built our roads for profit would have to still be liable for their creations in the future, not just rake in profits. No unlimited immunity for us, thank you.

    • Have you actually been hit by a deadbeat that doesn’t have insurance? Have you ever been hit by someone who’s insurance refuses to pay? Once you go through those experiences or have someone close to you who does, then you’ll understand the present system isn’t what you think it is. I can to you some real life stories too.

      Furthermore when was the last time the number on the sign did anything? Tonight a Cook County Mounty passed me… he was doing about 80-85mph on an interstate with 55mph PSL. He wasn’t driving unsafely, just illegally. He was actually going slow for a cop on that road. And why does it have to be speed? I know of three motorcycle crashes based on drivers pulling out without looking properly or just expecting traffic to yield alone.

      The libertarian system doesn’t seem bad once one realizes the present system with all its side effects doesn’t really protect us. At least we can lose the side effects.

      • Dear Brent,

        Very true.

        The existence of the government and its vast spiderweb of legal constraints often prevents the spontaneous emergence of vastly superior private sector, market based solutions to societal problems that would have been resolved long ago through individual initiative.

        It is a general principle that applies to everything under the sun.

        One example. The public on Taiwan has been reeling from a “rancid oil scandal.” The health authorities failed to protect the public from unscrupulous merchants who recyled waste cooking oil and sold it as pure, fresh vegetable oil.

        Yet the proposed “solution” is to give the very people who failed to do their job more power and money.

        • RE: “Yet the proposed “solution” is to give the very people who failed to do their job more power and money.”

          To me, that defines government in a nutshell, right there.

          Boon-fucking-doggle. Front, and center.

      • RE: “Have you actually been hit by a deadbeat that doesn’t have insurance?”

        Yes.

        And, I told him to, ‘beat feet’ and get lost, as the damage appeared to be slight, and seeing as how he had no insurance, and looked to be an approximation of “me” (minus twenty years) and a different nationality. …

        I appreciated full coverage a bit more after that. That’s what it’s for, isn’t it?

        …It was only later I found out he bent the frame.
        But still, i was ok with it for some reason.

        …Maybe it was because I was on the flip side of the coin once?

        I hit an old man’s RV when I was >18. The brakes went out on a curve.
        It was slight damage. …He let me off.

        …What comes around, goes around?

        Anyway, pardon the interruption. Just thinking out loud.

        • I’ve had a lot of vehicles over the years. An elderly lady hit the front of my 85 New Yorker with her Mercury Cougar in front of a hospital, and did a thousand or two in damage.

          Somebodies bigboobed floozy girlfriend backed into my 89 Ford Taurus leaving a party, and everyone came in and narced on her. I said, I don’t care and left it at that. Besides dealing with insurance weasels and ballbreakers with clipboards is a surefire way to harsh your buzz.

          I don’t know why, but I sometimes just wave the ones off in the wrong. Other times, like if its a Alpha Male White Guy type, I hold out for what I’m due. Like you say, sometimes you just let things go and add it to the karma account.

          I have little inclination to hold kids, women, or indigent foreigners accountable for anything. Perhaps its suicidal, but it just doesn’t feel cricket.

          I may soon be an indigent foreigner myself someday, and will be seeing how it is from the other side.

          You want to be logical and self-preserving. But you still want to maintain a feeling of being human, too. It’s probably totally cognitively dissonant, but that’s how it goes.

          I have great respect for Swiss, Japanese, Jewish, British, and other complex and consistently acting best-in-class peoples. But I grew up around cognitive dissonant idealists, and I don’t think a paper tiger like myself can change my stripes much, at this point.

          It’s one thing to agonize over and discuss first principles. Another thing entirely to learn to live by them.

          • Food for thought, that’s for sure.

            Also, loved this line: “Besides dealing with insurance weasels and ballbreakers with clipboards is a surefire way to harsh your buzz.”

            Crack me up.

            You’re a jewl, Tor Libertarian.

    • George,

      Your presumption/assumption is that the current system prevents such. I assure you, it does not. Many years ago, I had a very nice (and very rare) 1976 Trans-Am. Not just any old ’76 TA. A 50th Anniversary TA. With the last of the 455 V-8s (and 4-speed manual trans). T-tops. That car would be worth about $30-$40k today.

      But it’s worth nothing today. Because it was totaled by a guy with no insurance who ran a red light. “The law” did not prevent him from driving – much less compel him to pay for the damages he caused.

      Meanwhile, for the past 20 years, I’ve not so much as scratched someone else’s fender yet have paid out thousands of dollars to the insurance mafia for “coverage” I demonstrably do not need and most definitely do not want.

  12. I once had a VW bug up to 90mph on a 1972 Interstate….and of course there wasn’t another car to be seen . It took a while ,
    but I was rather proud of myself . It felt a lot faster,then,lol.

    • Hi Dan,

      Ditto!

      I once owned a ’73 Super Beetle and – on a downslope – also came close to 90.

      Lots of fun to be had driving a slow car fast!

      • The most gutless thing I’ve ever driven was on Army exercise in 1989, Northern Territory, Australia. No speed limits back then on the open roads up there.

        It was a ‘Nam era Pommie Land Rover. Aluminium body and the crappest 3.3 litre petrol ever devised. Took some 3 miles to get to 80mph – and that was its limit.

        One lucky thing that happened to me up there was finding a rusty old 9/16 and 5/8 spanner from WW2 on Fenton airstrip.

        In the closing stages of the exercise I was carrying about 6 officers and smoke started pouring out the back. The return hose of the oil cooler had blown and spraying oil over the exhaust. That spanner was my only tool (nup, they didn’t issue tools) and I used it to bypass the cooler. I still have it in my toolbox. Maybe I should hang it off my rearview..?

    • That’s awesome. My older brother had a bug. We got it up close to 90mph one time coming down the mountain from Joshua Tree National Park in 29 Palms CA one time. Felt like the front was going to fall off. That car was like a stunt vehicle. It was excellent on the snow, mud, and wet conditions, and even capable of high speed 180s and coming up on two wheels in slow tight turns.

  13. That Chuck Norris picture is awesome. My buddy happened to have emailed me this video this morning. Mang, the 80s rocked and here is video proof!

  14. Eric, the interesting question is, has the dealer who sells pot to little kids (note: I’m SPECIFICALLY talking about a dealer who has been proven to sell to kids, not all dealers as such) caused harm and violated rights? I tend to think yes.

    • Dear David,

      The solution to the problem of “pushers selling drugs to kids” is the exact opposite of what mainstream conservatives think it is.

      The solution is not “law and order.” Not “harsher penalties.” Not “more efficient” government. As if there were ever such a thing. No, the solution is “complete and utter lawlessness.”

      The entire Rube Goldberg apparatus of government has clearly not stopped “pushers selling drugs to kids.” If anything, it has done the exact opposite. It has incentivized black market drug trade and made the drug trade a “good cop/bad cop” scam with governments playing the role of good cop and the drug trade playing the role of bad cop.

      For them drug prohibition is a win/win. Both profit.

      Absent government, civil society would spontaneously solve every one of the problems related to drugs.

      For starters, lack of legal prohibitions would mean lack of black market profit margins. That alone would pretty much kill off the entire drug trade just by itself.

      Also, many sheeple assume that absent government, pushers could sell drugs to kids with utter impunity.

      What idiocy. Take the “knockout game.” It is taking place today right under the nose of Big Government. The biggest government ‘Murca has ever had. Is Big Government doing a damned thing to protect us?

      Now take “massive open carry.” Massive open carry is being done in open defiance of our alleged “protector.”

      Now connect the dots. Imagine what would happen to any urban thugs who tried to play the “knockout game” against a 2A champion carrying a black rifle with 30 round magazines.

      Ditto pushers who attempted to victimize minors who lack the judgment to make such decisions about their lives at this stage in the game. Imagine what the parents would do to them absent government and liberal judges.

      The solution to all problems of society is “complete and utterly lawlessness.”

        • Am I the only one freaked out by David’s repeated catchphrase, I’m OK with killing X?

          This time X is a 41 year old guy who had sex with a 14 year old – “in certain circumstances”?

          Ta Dah!

          tl;dr

          god is love

          the bible’s gist

          I got two spam posts finally. Clicked on the “not spam.” Then went to dashboard, edited out their hyperlinks, and let them thru. Really, this shit is all way harder than you’d think.
          http://gibsme.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/57/

          check this out

          raptor jesus

          creationism

          only god can judge

          • Yeah, some of this stuff is (sigh) totally nuts.

            Example: I read a story the other day about a high school teacher (female) who is facing serious charges because she was having sex with a (IIRC) a 16-year-old (male) student.

            Now, whether she ought to be teaching – whether this was a conflict of interest – those are valid questions.

            But, do you suppose that 16-year-old felt “molested” by the teacher?

            Speaking just for me, I’d (and every other 15-year-old boy in my class at the time) would have loved to have been offered a shot at my 9th grade Earth Sciences teacher!

            • What about your 9th-grade Social studies or History teacher? Or Algebra…?
              What if the positions (male/female) are reversed?

              The women I had teaching classes? My “Outie” crawls back inside at the thought of it NOW. And he’s had 20 years of action since then… 😉 But the very THOUGHT leaves him shell-shocked. And feeling VERY used and dirty….
              That’s sort of normal when looking at a 50-year-old “schoolteacher”…
              Or, any 50 year old… 😉

              Even back then as a horny teenager, there were lines you didn’t even THINK about.

              And at the same time: if it’s not a problem this way, what about a male teacher with a female student? (We’ll assume he’s single, to keep it simple.)
              Is he somehow manipulating her? Forcing her (which would be a separate question)?

              What about the case of the 12-year-old recently, whose teacher had sex with him in her van on school property…. And the judge ordered HIM to pay child support?

              We will ALWAYS face the WORST POSSIBLE cases eventually; let’s determine how to deal with them sooner, before they come up in a court case.

            • And me a shot at my first year high school French teacher. The only time french deserves to be a capital letter. What great legs she showed as her dress crept up her legs when she wrote with chalk at the top of the blackboard!!!!! And she later won a beauty contest meant for single women, and she was married and in her mid 30s at the time.

              • Oh yeah!

                My 9th grade teacher, Miss Bierman (IIRC), was probably all of 24. We were 15.

                She would deliberately lean over our desks and show us the goods. If any of us had been able to “hit that,” the others would have considered him a god!

            • 16 is close enough to adulthood that I think the men in question were able to consent so long as they weren’t pressured in any way (ie. “I might raise your grades if you do this” or “you don’t want to fail do you?”) Barring some type or another of coercion, I’d agree that the teachers should be fired.

              14 just strikes me as too young, though. And yes, I know this is somewhat arbitrary. Mind you, I agree that two teenagers banging each other shouldn’t be a crime. It may be undesirable, but it shouldn’t be a crime. But in any situation where one party is SIGNIFICANTLY older than the other, that changes things. I’m having a hard time envisioning a situation where a 14 year old actually, willingly consents to having sex with a 41 year old. It seems VERY likely to me that such a relationship would have been coerced. The odds are very, very high.

              Let me put it this way, I do think rape deserves the death penalty. I’m not talking about a big, distant federal government executing the death penalty. But I think the rape victim has every right to demand the rapist’s life. If the victim is a child, I think his/her parents have the right to do so on her behalf.

              If a 14 year old sleeps with someone who is old enough to be their father, I’m inclined to assume that that was rape. The 14 year old is barely a teenager.

              Mind you, I understand that that’s THIS culture. In a historic, eastern culture where 14 year olds are adults, mature enough to be such, and generally regarded as such, in that culture a 14 year old could be considered an adult and can marry whoever he/she wants (or fornicate, I don’t morally agree but its not my right to decide.)

              But, I don’t think that’s the case in American culture. Most 14 year olds are children. Are there exceptions? Sure. But that’s why my original comment said “under the right circumstances” rather than “always.”

              Admittedly, I do feel like there is some difference regarding whether the younger party is a male or female, but I don’t know if there’s any rational reason for that or if its just my moral conservatism.

              • This is purely arbitrary – full disclosure – and I’m offering this solely as my own opinion: The sexes differ. I remember being 14, a 9th grader, and very willing to jump my Earth Science teacher, Miss XXX. Not just me, either. I had six or so friends in that class, and it was all we talked about. Any one of us would have been in heaven had a “Mrs. Robinson” situation arisen. I think most adolescent boys are this way. Sex is different for males. It is (or can be) just sex. Thus, I’d need to see evidence of coercion to consider such a scenario criminal. If the teacher was attractive and the boys clearly willing, forget about it.

      • OK, we agree (I wouldn’t even call what you describe “complete and utter lawlessness”, but I agree with the point.) But the difference is, it could be morally justified to use violence against someone who sold crack to a 10 year old, yet it would not be morally justified to use violence against someone who sold crack to a 20 year old. The former case of violence should be protected by private PDAs, but not the latter. I assume you would agree?

        I tend to agree with Rothbard that the libertarian society would probably need at least some kind of bare bones constitution that explains the basis of the NAP. I know there are some anarcho-libertarians that disagree, but I’m not certain how it would be avoidable.

      • Dear 8sm,

        In my comments, the term “pushers” is in scare quotes.

        For example:

        The solution to the problem of “pushers selling drugs to kids” is the exact opposite of what mainstream conservatives think it is.

        I’m sure you know that scare quotes reverse the connotations of a term.

    • That’s a straw man, David – a literal farce.

      It’s of a piece with claiming that McDonald’s “pushes” cheeseburgers.

      No. People want them – and freely (without any coercion) choose to buy them.

      Same with arbitrarily illegal drugs.

      Did anyone ever try to force you to smoke pot (or whatever)? I mean: Literally use violence or its threat to compel you, against your will, to consume a substance?

      That never happened to me, or to anyone I know.

      I – and all my friends, literally everyone I know in my age group – did “do” (that is, freely partook of) various arbitrarily illegal drugs. But no one forced us. We wanted to. We sought out the “pusher.” But no one ever “pushed” them on us.

      That term is a political term. That is, a lie.

      • Eric, I don’t know where I used the word “pushed.” I simply asked about someone who sells drugs to kids.

        Regarding the issue of drug dealers being other kids, perhaps this is comparable to underage sex. Most of us would agree that if two 14 year olds have sex, that isn’t a crime. It may not be ideal (I’d say that it isn’t,) but nonetheless not a crime. But, if a 41 year old has sex with a 14 year old, that is considered a form of rape, in part because the 41 year old is taking advantage of the 14 year old. Now, I’m not sure exactly where the line is with regards to some of these age issues, maybe 14 is old enough but I don’t really think so. I tend to think it would be comparable with drugs. A 14 year old who sells to another 14 year old isn’t really doing anything criminal. But a fully mature adult who sells to a teenager like that? I don’t know. I’m not advocating the State doing any kind of solution. But I wouldn’t really have a problem with it if a parent decided to use violence against the drug dealer in that latter instance. And I’d certainly be OK… I know some people are going to freak out about this one, but I’d be OK with seeing a parent kill a mature adult who has sex with a 14 year old under certain circumstnaces, assuming the 14 year old was not truly able to consent.

        • David, have you thought about history? I mean, there’s A Lot of people in the past who married outside the bounds of what you seem to label as rape. What of them?
          Many a pioneer woman married at age 14, or 12. (It was the norm then (the 1800’s early 1900’s) ask yourself, why it’s Not now?) … Was it to a 41 year old? Who knows?… Was it criminal? …Does today’s modern Gestapo want to make the parents of our ancestors into criminals? …Why – yes – they do.
          I hope you are careful Not to become one of them too. The Gestapo, that is.
          They are legion.

          Also, you didn’t use the word “pushed” but you implied as much when you wrote, “someone who sells drugs to kids”.

          I mean, what? Eight year old’s have twenty bucks or so a week to waste on a bag? (And the parents aren’t to blame for that? Psft!)

          …Or, are we talking 14 year old’s? The age that was traditionally and religiously thought of as the age of adulthood?

          I kind of get the drift that you’re ok with perpetual childhood? A.k.a. bring On the nannystate!
          Yeesh. W.F.D.

        • Hi David,

          Apologies if I misinterpreted your original post!

          Now, back to the subject:

          The legal definition of adulthood – like speed limits – is completely arbitrary. Consider: When I was 18 it was legal for me to buy hard alcohol. But guys your age are still considered quasi-children. It is illegal for you to possess/consume hard liquor until you are 21. Are you more – or less – “adult” than I was at your age?

          Some 15 year-olds are more mature than some 25 year olds.

          If that 15 year old wishes to work – for example – and expresses that wish in a reasonable, logical manner – why ought he to be prohibited?

          Etc.

          On drugs: My experience back in the day (high school/college) was that the sellers and buyers of drugs were in the same general demographic. I can’t recall an instance of a person much older than late teens or early 20s “dealing” to high school/junior high kids. Probably because young teens tend not to hang out with people over 30.

          In any event, if coercion is not involved, then surely any interaction must be viewed as presumptively voluntary and hence, not criminal.

          Yes, I know. One can trot out extreme examples (an adult spoon feeding drugs to a baby) but while such things are certainly possible and may even happen occasionally, they are tragic exceptions to the rule and ought not to be used as the basis for “slippery sloping” everything into the same category.

          • Note: I am sort of presupposing minarchism in this post. I prefer anarcho-capitalism, but I’m trying to stay as close to the current reality as possible for the sake of the point I’m trying to make. In other words, I don’t actually want “government” to exist in its current form, but I reference it anyway.

            @Eric- I’d love to be able to wave my hands and say “let the right thing happen, every time” but it seems like the best thing that could actually be done in these “gray area” cases is to allow parents to press charges on their children’s behalf if they want to. If not, nothing happens.

            Mind you, that doesn’t automatically mean that punishment is doled out just because a parent reported. It just means that “government” will not even consider pressing charges in these types of cases unless the parents ask them to. If a 12 year old is sold drugs, and the parents decide not to do anything about it, then the government is not allowed to interfere. If the parents do report, the judge (or ideally a private arbitrator) can still throw the case out if it seems like the child did consent to what happened.

            The only issue here is “what if the parents are just neglectful parents.” Unfortunately, I’d say normally there’s not a ton you can do about that, but if its an extreme case a relative could intervene.

            Regarding my “Becomming part of the gestapo” its never going to happen. I have no interest in using force, even in cases where I do think its justified, really. Even if we did get to the point where we have private PDAs I doubt I’d become part of one. I’m just a political theorist trying to advocate for as much political liberty as possible and trying to work out some of the tougher questions in ways that make sense. As for pioneer women who married at 12 or 14, I think there was a time when our culture was such where 12 or 14 year olds were effectively adults, but that that is rarely if ever the case now. I don’t think the rare exceptions should be punished for the weaknesses of others, hence why I reference the parent’s prerogative not to prosecute above. (Admittedly, unlike Rothbard [who I do respect], I reject the idea that young children just have an unqualified right to run away from home whenever they want. I do believe God ordained the family.

            • Hi David,

              Every crime – properly speaking – must have a victim. That’s the standard for me. If a 12-year-old sneaks a beer, is he a victim? Takes a puff? I don’t see how. There may be arguments that he has been victimized, but I’d need to hear them.

              When did you get your first taste of alcohol? I was probably about 10 or 11. No big deal. I definitely do not consider myself as having been a victim of anything.

              Age of consent is a tough one. Biologically, sexual maturity is easy enough to define. But, is sexual maturity synonymous with adulthood? What makes a 17-year-old different from an eighteen-year-old? When is a person mature in mind as well as body?

              Fluid, hard to nail down.

              But, the arbitrary classifications we have now are often absurd on the face of it. We can all I agree – I hope – that it’s ludicrous to deny an 18-year-old hard liquor on the theory that he’s not “mature” or “adult” enough to handle it. Yet the same 18-year-old can vote – and carry an automatic weapon in combat and be killed (and kill) “for his country.” And I’d hope most of us would not categorically label a 21-year-old with a 17-year-old girlfriend a child molester. Etc.

    • Addendum:

      In junior high and high school, the “pushers” – in my experience – were never adults but always other kids.

      Is it a good thing? Probably not. But is it a criminal thing? I think not.

      No parent likes the idea of their kid smoking pot – or having sex. But kids will do these things, regardless. It is part of becoming an adult – and yes, there will be negative consequences for some. I remember girls in my high school class getting pregnant; a few kids’ over-use of pot probably affected their grades for the worse. This is life.

      The role of parents is to help keep their kids from veering off the road into the proverbial ditch. Some parents do not succeed. Some kids fail. This is life.

      And it will always be so.

      The seductive – but false – song of Clover is that such failures can be avoided by turning everything over to Clover & Co. to be “managed.”

      When this happens, instead of a handful of failures, society itself fails.

      • eric, I love the old saw about a guy “forcing” a woman to take heroin until she’s addicted so he can then do anything he wants with her, have her as a slave.

        I also like the one about Old Saint Nick and well, the J word…..

        It won’t hurt when I fall down from this barstool
        It won’t hurt when I stumble in the street
        It won’t hurt because the whiskey eases misery
        But even whiskey can not ease you’re hurting me.

        And so it goes. Jack D and the local bar teamed up on me, nothing to do with lack of love or direction or picking the wrong person. Indeed, it is called life and nobody’s is perfect, not even clover’s. And after a few shots of JD she’d probably break down and cry about it to you.

        I don’t mean to be unkind but if any of these gung ho Christians ever see through the rain they’re as likely as anyone to dive to the bottom of that bottle. I’ve seen it many times and many Catholics I’ve known are mainly the ones who can admit it and eventually deal with it.

        • Eight, There seems to be certain words that set off moderation. I’ve noticed every post where I have the word c l o v e r in it without the spaces of course goes into moderation.

          • Thanks for the info, BrentP. I mean, obviously a – c l o v e r – is the most scariest phenomenon know to man. Worse than a Trojan or Virus by far.

            No wonder Askimet (owned by WordPress) doesn’t allow such an abomination on its platform, for its own sake. Who could blame someone for not wanting a
            “c” word around?

            Anyone tried this?
            https://wordpress.org/plugins/akismet/

            Maybe I’ll try it and put my posts to it first. Supposedly, it’ll tell you what’s spam before you actually submit something.

            “Akismet checks your comments against the Akismet Web service to see if they look like spam or not and lets you review the spam it catches under your blog’s “Comments” admin screen.

            Major features in Akismet include:

            Automatically checks all comments and filters out the ones that look like spam.
            Each comment has a status history, so you can easily see which comments were caught or cleared by Akismet and which were spammed or unspammed by a moderator.
            URLs are shown in the comment body to reveal hidden or misleading links.
            Moderators can see the number of approved comments for each user.
            A discard feature that outright blocks the worst spam, saving you disk space and speeding up your site.”

            – if there’s any spammers here, send me your worse. I’ve always wanted to have a blog that’s full of spam. Why be like all the other spamophobiacs, when I can bury my personal drivel in bizarre broken english drivel of ESL bots who seem to be autistic 8 years olds with no conception of what makes people purchase things whatsoever.

            Not really a blog, just trying to learn the logistics of blogging on my own.
            http://gibsme.wordpress.com/

              • How about that, “Red rover, red rover, don’t bring the clover over” or whatever I wrote, won’t make it through WordPress Moderation. Interesting.

              • I did two tests after the ‘C-Lover’ comment that didn’t go through right away.

                …Makes me think the Internet is more controlled than we think. …And it’s not just from that.
                That’s minor shit.

                • Hi Helot,

                  I just approved several that had been held up in the queue… I was out most of yesterday (at mother-in-law’s)… I’m still down here (Raleigh), pecking away at a Starbucks at about 5:30 Monday morning…

            • Hi Tor,

              One of my great hopes is that – one day – I will be able to afford staff. Including someone to monitor the site all day and excise spam immediately while making sure no real people are inconvenienced in any way.

                • Rev, when clover’s mom realized the old man wasn’t going to deliver another via his perpetual sexual rainsuit, she retrieved used said from the trash and did a little inventive work with the old baster. Timewise, things were getting dicey for the boys, just barely moving, so you should be able to understand clover’s disfunctionality(spell check says it ain’t a word, oh well).

                  Clover’s dad has always had doubts about her being his but is it worth the investigation this late? Naw, he’s saddled up and ready to ride every day but like most, he knows he’ll be so tired at the end of it, he’ll just ride home where some warm food and bed await.

                  I guess we all have our “clover’s” to bear. There may be something to leaving that different one outside at night to see if it’s going to make it. It’s common is some cultures.

                  Well, hell, gotta go fight them clovers. There is never less of them it seems. Every day at least one has to pull right out in front of me doing the PSL on a two lane road…..brake check I guess.

  15. ‘The Cheat’ (1915) – by Cecil DeMille SILENT FILM. This was a slightly scandalous film when it was released. An early work of Cecil DeMille’s that deals with infidelity and interracial relationships back in 1915.

    it still stands as one of the best silent films out there, and a glimpse of the world very early in the beginning of the Progressive Era and then Welfare/Warfare cartoon world we now know.

    Starring Fannie Hill and the excellent Sessue Hayakawa. It’s a real winner.

    The extravagant wealth and hedonistic freedom of these films is what inspired Ayn Rand to come to America and then Hollywood.

    The Cheat (1915)
    59 min – Drama – 13 December 1915 (USA)

    A venal, spoiled stockbroker’s wife impulsively embezzles $10,000 from the charity she chairs and desperately turns to a Burmese ivory trader to replace the stolen money.

  16. The Danger Girl 1916
    – Gloria Swanson driving around. Not sure what model the car is, but it looks AMAZING. If they’re fazing out autos, why don’t we return to the horse? They can’t use onstar to disable those.

    Gloria disguises herself as a man to seduce a vamp away from her boyfriend. A cross-dressing girl up to no good, hints of lesbianism, and lots of fun. Well ahead of it’s time. (says the uploader’s blurb, not me).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKVK_iyze0U

    • Return to the horse and cart Tor? Are you INSANE?

      That’s like having a glitching auto pilot that won’t switch off when you tell it.

      But I think I know what you mean though – tongue in cheek and I think this is where the clovers want us to go, but not the establishment, because they can’t rake in speeding fines anymore or book us for no licence and rego then 😉

      • Rev, not necessarily. A friend of mine, died in the wool cowboy, decided he’d go to town on horseback since it was just a few miles. Got to the bar and got toasted, then left on his horse. The local stopped him somehow and wrote him up for DWI. Of course after getting out of jail he beat the rap but still got tagged for DIP(drunk in public).

        A decade ago my wife began researching our common family near Waco and in surrounding counties. This just shows what a small world it is since she was a Catholic immigrants grand-daughter from Czechoslovakia who grew up in the city and I am an old country boy with great grandparents from Ireland and Scotland but somehow most of both families have some roots in McClelland and adjoining counties.

        She found lots of old newspapers from their era noting how someone had done themselves in after a night of drinking and heading home on a horse or wagon. Probably being dark has as much to do with it as anything.

        We need to outlaw night.

        • Why couldn’t bars keep some horses around like back in the saloon days?

          Have too many, hitch a team of horses up and they’ll take you and your truck back home, while you sleep it off in the cab?

          Still gotta be cheaper for all concerned than all this DWI rigamarole.

          The problem with these progressives, is they overvalue progress.

          Sure the horseless carriage represents a great deal of progress, but why completely throw away what was working for thousands of years?

          Man gets along best when he has all his rowdy animal friends around to watch his back. The horse’s job used to be to get you home, and to keep you up off the ground so one of those officious pig’s doesn’t start laying into you with his wooden stick for no good reason, other than he like to hear people squeal.

          If you look at the history of “white men” and why they’ve often had a better go of it, you’ll see that it’s never been progress that brought man independence and autonomy.

          It’s been the white man’s superior employment of dogs, horses, and other animals that really set him apart.

          The Chinese and Egyptians had some of the best technology of their day. But this never liberated the individual as much as it could have.

          Heck, much of the reason the Chinese are doing so well, is our regimented military drilled society has harnessed and domesticated us so well, it’s like we’re the cattle of the less sentimental and emotional societies, such as the Chinese.

          Now we’re their best friend, bow wow wow.

          • Tor, I can not drink for money. So here’s where I’m going. We’re booming now, money is flowing like water but since it’s west Tx., it’s flowing more like oil since water is expensive and scarce.

            You might have heard of a place called the Lumberyard in Roscoe Tx. It was an old Higgin-Botham Bartlett facility and now it’s a huge bar with every top name entertainer you can name, not just of country but bands such as Whitesnake, Asleep at the Wheel, The Beatles…..well, maybe not them but literally ZZ Top, etc. Of course there’s law jicks all over so getting there and back is a great income for the non-productive judicial, enforcement thugs. I am considering running a van service, from your house to this place and back. Since the entertainment is definitely not low cost then the ride could be fairly expensive but worth it. I’d pay to use it if it were available. Get taken out the back door to a waiting chauffeur service and returned home while continuing to party if you like. Much cheaper than the hassle and huge expense of DWI and fun to boot. It is a thought. I know a guy who does this and takes drinking guests/clients to Cowboy games with a class a rv and does very well. He has 2 or 3 of them now. There is a literal line drawn behind the driver. No client can go forward of this line but they can converse with him and party hardy. It’s the LAW so he can’t be hassled and neither can they.

              • Escher wrote, “Not a bad idea.”

                Well, of course, on the surface it’s not. But down below, until the monopoly of the police state is eliminated, it IS a very bad idea.
                Those pigs will come down on you so hard if you try to do anything close to that. The taxi mafia monopoly will pile on, too. …Just ask Uber.

                Anyway, iF you do, and you avoid the beat downs, hats off to you.

            • IIRC, some shithole state made it possible for the driver of a limo to be tagged for DUI – because of open containers in the passenger compartment.

              No idea how to confirm it (google’s not my friend right now, too much work I’m supposed to be doing, the attack chihuahua/PHB is driving me nuts.
              For those who follow Dilbert: Imagine that after working with the PHB all day, you go home to Alice barking orders at you…?
              See how sane you are.

  17. Wreckless is a 1935 American short film directed by William A. Shillin

    Driving With The Devil” by Brasher/Bogue

    See transporting your valuable commodity/money you’ve self-produced is the devil’s work. Besides, you might take a swig. God wants you to use greenbacks and be an abject puppet/slave.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efReycLtn_s Betty Boop’s Ker-Choo (1933) Auto Race [from the Max Fleischer era of the Technophile Jew]

    Philosophical and funny. Won’t see that in this Progressive Urbanics Age.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Fleischer

    Max Fleischer (July 19, 1883 – September 11, 1972) was an Polish-American animator, inventor, film director and producer.

    Fleischer was a pioneer in the development of the animated cartoon and served as the head of Fleischer Studios. He brought such animated characters as Betty Boop, Koko the Clown, Popeye, and Superman to the movie screen and was responsible for a number of technological innovations such as the Rotoscope.

    • “Just moping along the highway at 70..”

      That means top speed in the 30’s.. 🙂

      “Wreckless driving” – my point exactly.

      Judge: “Where can I get a car like that?”

      Thanks for that Brent. I especially liked the snivelling clover cop hoping to make a bust.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here