xkcd is cool, no matter what the haters on any blagoblogs** say. It's just cool the same way that Rush and D&D are cool.
But whatever. I'm a Far Side guy myself.
They're going to rescue Willzyx and Tom Cruise.
---
* For a recent example from Jawa Report. They do look for terrorists and terrorist propagandists to disrupt online, often by reporting videos online or getting servers to stop hosting terrorist sympathizer websites. Admirable work. They also like hot chicks, a staple of the internet - and know there's a reason they're morale boosters. I also like big morale boosters. Most guys do.
**Or blogoblag. But I wrote blagoblog without looking up that comic first... so I'm sticking to it. Blagoblog.
Bill Whittle's Part V of the explanation of Tea Party/conservative beliefs:
We see natural law revisited here. If it's yours, it's yours - and your property is your right - and your right to defend. No legitimate government can take away the right to property. Indeed, original phrase used by the founders was "life, liberty and pursuit of property". If it's yours, it's yours - be it your home, your house, your car, your labor, your wealth or your body.
Just today, I stumbled across this essay: Violence Is Golden. It's a very direct assessment of how society works, and how violence works. It's a more elaborate version of Robert Heinlein's explanation in Starship Troopers via Sgt Zim of the application of force.
Photo by Oleg Volk.
It's something that, like Whittle says, most conservative/Tea Party/traditionalist types instinctively understand. It's not something that needs to be elaborated on to be understood - but it's worth it to examine beliefs anyway. For most folks, Oleg Volk's posters are simply direct, visual statements of common sense. Through examining these beliefs, it makes it easier to convey them to those who don't understand - those who fear firearms and place their blind trust unwisely in the monopoly of force that the state controls.
Again, by Oleg Volk.
But for people who live in a bubble, it is not easy to understand. For rich city people who believe that the police are there in an instant, perhaps banning guns makes sense. They don't have to experience violence in their lives. They are never threatened by crime, animals, nor do they feel the boot of oppressive government - the police are invariably subservient, because the super-rich are connected to the county/city/state/federal government.
For the not-super-rich city dweller, the modest suburbanite, or the rural resident of whatever means, physical security is a real concern - even against tyrannical government.
For people who've been victimized on a massive scale - they know what gun control really means firsthand. It isn't a myth, it isn't a "can't happen here", and no amount of "we live in a good neighborhood" or "we have laws against that" means a damn thing. They know that violence exists - sometimes in the form of common thugs, but more often in the form of tyranny.
Volk's work again.
And that line of defense is just part of beauty of the Second Amendment. The Founders knew a way to prevent tyranny, oppression, and crime (which is just tyranny or oppression on the personal scale). And they knew that the more of it we exercise, the fewer rights we have trampled - the freer we are, and the safer we are. The greater that defense, the greater the deterrence against oppressors. No freeman should ever be disbarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson
An armed society is a polite society.
- Robert Heinlein
For those unconvinced, I suggest exploring Oleg Volk's site: A Human Right. It's also a good site to explore your own opinions on the Second Amendment, as well as something to show to others who may not have the frame of reference to understand.
Bill Whittle's Part 2 of the explanation of conservative/Tea Party beliefs:
A few minutes to gain valuable insight into the why. It may be a "why" that many of us already intuitively know, but to examine one's own beliefs is always worthwhile.
Thomas Sowell offers this quote about traditions from his book "The Vision of the Anointed": "For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before."
Sowell's statement, in conjunction with Whittle's explanations, is much of the reason why social and fiscal conservatism so often find themselves represented by the same individuals. The basis for much of the thinking - that individual experiences have given people decades, centuries, or millenia of good choices - remains the same, and to disregard either social conservatism (traditionalism) or fiscal conservatism without good cause, or because of elitist mandate, is foolish. It assumes that the financial or social engineer (whether to stricter or looser policies of society or finance) alone has a better idea - and the elitist engineer must therefore direct society.
The non-elitist who believes they have a better way puts forth his new ideas as an invention, which is adopted by society if it's good, and ignored or rejected by society if it is not.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if someone thinks they can do better - they can prove it themselves.
I've taken this quiz before, but now having seen the effects of the liberal fascist/statist mode of govt, it appears I've gotten way more hardcore in support of liberty.
My only non-100% libertarian question is one that basically consists of "how the hell you gonna do it?"
There is a problem with the quiz and its results. Statist and liberal are the same thing, as the fundamental basis of modern liberalism is that they have no beliefs beyond pandering to emotion.
Jonah Goldberg rather eloquently illustrates this by pointing out that the basis of modern liberalism begins in the 19-teens with Woodrow Wilson and his cadre, who all believed they knew what was best. HG Wells coined the term "Liberal Fascism" to describe the progressives of the era - and meant it in glowing terms. The left was enamored with fascism and the trappings of ultimate power and still is - as evidenced by the bow to the Saudi king, the hug with Hugo Chavez, etc.
Thus, the modern liberal is a statist, and vice versa, though he'll call himself a progressive or whatever lie he needs to in order to get by. Van Jones was a communist who proclaimed himself a liberal and progressive - but all are the same thing - people who crave power over others and are those who should NEVER have it.
The liberalism of the founding fathers was libertarianism coupled with some degrees of conservatism based on traditional Christian values. It was liberal in opposition to monarchy and despotism - it was revolutionary in contrast to that. It was vehemently not the "revolutionary" of tyrannical dictators like Hugo Chavez or the mass murdering coward Che Guevara or of even greater mass murderer Lenin. That's simply one more tyrannical despot replacing a weaker government.
Nor does any "liberal" policy in the quiz follow true liberal principles - which are libertarian principles, or conservative principles - as conservatives are seeking to CONSERVE the liberties and virtues derived from them that they see as most beneficial to the survival of the American people.
It's flawed on the whole statist dictatorial side. No true liberal should be taking from one group to give to another, as welfare does. That's theft - it starts with money and ends with prima nocta.
Nor does a traditional conservative - based on conserving the principles that made the country great - demand that government interfere in people's home lives.
I suppose the conclusion is that, given liberal-statists identical status and thought, and the opinions of an American conservative versus an American traditionalist (who doesn't adhere to the Constitution so much as their cultural opinions - which may not be a bad thing for culture, but perhaps shouldn't interfere in government and laws) - the test is invalid.
Diatribe over - but consider it no matter your result. Classic liberalism, American conservatism, or just libertarianism, call it what you will - it all adds up to this: And this:
