Ideas are the foundation of the brain standard, one of which is that only individuals have rights. This cuts through the collectivist dreck that passes for thought among most of the world’s so-called intellectuals. The variations of collectivism all disguise nothing more than brute force hiding behind propaganda. Their inevitable failures stem from their essential flaw: those that control the collective claim rights that negate those of the individual.
There are grounds for hope. From the ruins of impending collapse there will be some who reject collectivism and are committed to rebuilding on a foundation of individual rights. How they will protect those rights and whatever territories they stake out are what theoretical physicists sometimes call “engineering problems.” One advantage they’ll have, though, as the brain standard constituency—they’ll be smarter than their adversaries. Attention, imagination, and intelligence will be keenly focused on building from the ruins and protecting what they’ve built.
Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine someone invents a cheap, portable device that defends its bearer and his or her property from all violence from all sources, but has no offensive capability. The device is so cheap that virtually everyone can buy it, and charities are set up to donate it to those who can’t. The device is universally available and creates a world without violence.
How would such a world function? People would have to produce to survive, but absent mutual agreement no one would have an enforceable claim on anyone else’s production. There would be no coercive transfers of money or property. Disputes would be settled by negotiation and mediation. A body of civil law similar to English common law would develop. Surely such a society would figure out a way to deal with nonviolent crime.
The negation of violence would eliminate government’s nominal rationale: protecting citizens from violence. In the absence of government (and its violence), individuals and society as a whole would be free to advance as far as their capabilities will take them.
This extreme hypothetical offers a stark contrast with the absence of anything resembling freedom anywhere in the world today. Government and collectivism are top-down codependents based on violence and coercion. Their current manifestations are replaying the dreary and what should be the common knowledge lesson of history: they inevitably fail, often after a great deal of bloodshed.
SLL has a unique take on the world. Some like its perspective, some don’t. If you like it, or if you don’t but take a perverse joy in funding your intellectual adversaries, please consider offering compensation for the time and effort put into SLL. Most of our readers are value-for-value people. If that describes you, please recognize SLL’s value. The payment links are on the right or click the button below. Thank you.
In the current jockeying among collectivist governments for the things over which they jockey, Russia’s and China’s are doing a better job than the U.S.’s. The former are the co-leaders of the Eurasian alliance and represent substantial politic and economic power. The latter is bankrupt, embroiled in yet another war it won’t win, and stands accused of sabotaging its most important European ally’s oil pipelines. At home, the U.S. government and its fellow travelers are in thrall to brain-dead ideologies that hasten the country’s disintegration.
Georfence warrants also threatens every phone user’s freedom. Geofence traces your whereabouts and gives that data to the police, who can then rummage through it and decide if you were near a crime scene. If you were, they can haul you in. This obliterates the 4th Amendment warrant requirements. From Reilly Stephens at realclearwire:
The last time your phone asked you to allow this or that app access to your location data, you may have had some trepidation about how much Apple or Google know about you. You may have worried about what might come of that, or read about China’s use of the data to track anti-lockdown protesters. What you probably didn’t realize is Google has already searched your data on behalf of the federal government to see if you were involved with January 6th.
But last month, the federal district court in DC issued an opinion in the case of one of the many defendants who stands accused of sacking the Capitol in the wake of the 2020 election.
And with it, Judge Rudolph Contreras became the first federal district judge to approve a “Geofence” warrant, endorsing a recent police innovation: searching the cell phone history of every American to check who happened to be in the area of some potential crime.
The “Geofence” in this context refers to cell phone location data collected by Google from users of its Android operating system, as well as iPhone users who use apps such as Google Maps. Location tracking can be turned off, but most users allow it for the convenience of getting directions, tracking their daily jog, or finding the nearest Chipotle. The Government’s warrant demanded location history for every Google account holder within a range of longitude and latitude roughly corresponding to the Capitol building on the afternoon of January 6, 2021, along with similar data from that morning and evening (to filter out Hill staff and security guards).
It’s not clear this information was even needed: This defendant was apprehended within the building that day, carrying knives and pepper spray, and features on various security cameras — his whereabouts are not in question. Many of his coreligionists were considerate enough to live stream their antics themselves. While tracking down every participant in what was dubbed the Beer Belly Putsch is impractical, prosecutors have not lacked for defendants, or for evidence against them. But the government nonetheless decided to resort to a level of mass surveillance without precedent in history or criminal law. This is only the second federal district judge to rule on such a warrant, and the first, in the Eastern District of Virginia, found it “invalid for lack of particularized probable cause” (though that judge declined to suppress the evidence on the basis of other Fourth Amendment loopholes created by the Supreme Court).
They said it was an absurd waste of time, but now, the progressive coastal regions of Oregon and Democrats in Idaho are getting a little worried about the “Greater Idaho Movement,” with at least 11 eastern Oregon counties officially voting to leave the state and join their more conservative neighbors in Idaho. Democrats were saying that the move was impossible, but with momentum growing they are now suggesting that the break-up is “bad for the country.”
Why is it bad for the country if a handful of conservative counties decide to freely walk away from the state of Oregon and join with Idaho? Leftists do not explain the assertion, but one can deduce from their behavior a number of probable conclusions.
Common arguments Democrats in Oregon and Idaho make against the move are usually an attempt to dissuade Idaho citizens from wanting to pursue secession measures. The core claim is that the state of Idaho would have to subsidize the new counties, with Dems suggesting that rural areas are a drain on high revenue centers like Portland.
This stems from the leftist argument that red counties and states “cannot survive” economically when detached from blue regions.
It’s simply not true.
Firstly, if rural counties are a financial sinkhole for progressive states, then why are they so opposed to rural counties leaving? Would this not enrich blue counties beyond belief? While at least one study shows that Idaho would incur expenses such as Medicaid costs, it also shows that the state actually stands to gain an extra $170 million in net revenue with the new counties in place, along with an even greater conservative majority population, all without people being forced to relocate.
Eventually parts of what we know as the United States are going to go their separate ways. Nothing lasts forever. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:
Never is a very, very long time in politics. Yet whenever the topic of secession or so-called national divorce comes up, how often do we hear that “secession will never happen.” It’s difficult to tell if people using the term “never” actually mean it. If they mean “not in the next ten or twenty years,” that’s plausible. But if they truly mean “not in the next 100 (or more) years,” it’s clear they’re working on the level of absolutely pure, unfounded speculation. Such statements reflect little more than personal hopes and dreams.
Experience is clear that the state of most polities often changes enormously in the span of a few decades. Imagine Russia in 1900 versus Russia in 1920. Or perhaps China in 1930 versus China in 1950. If someone had told the Austrian emperor in 1850 that his empire would be completely dismembered by 1919, he probably would have refused to believe it. Few British subjects in 1945 expected the empire to be all but gone by 1970. In the 1970s, the long-term survival of the Soviet Union appeared to be a fait accompli. For a visual sense of this, simply compare world maps from 1900 and 1950. In less than the span of a human lifetime, the political map of the world often changes so as to be unrecognizable.
The leftist mantra is: “I control, therefore I am.” That is why they cannot live and let live. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.us:
It should be clear to anyone paying attention during this current stage of instability in our modern era that something is very wrong in terms of American society. I’m not talking about ongoing issues of political corruption and economic mismanagement, I’m talking about something much more dangerous. I’m talking about the systematic derailment of our culture, heritage, principals, history and moral compass. I’m talking about the vicious devouring of the very sinews that hold our civilization together.
There is a cancer eating away at America, a concerted and organized effort to destabilize. For anyone who is familiar with the Conjuring movies, it’s a bit like a demonic invasion. As Ed Warren cautions, the three stages of attack are infestation, oppression and finally, possession. The little demon we are dealing with, though, comes with Antifa patches, rainbow flags and special pronouns.
This week I came across a statement by Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene in which she called for a “national divorce”, a separation of conservative red states and far left blue states, a parting of ways due to our obvious irreconcilable differences. Leftists within the corporate media, of course, flipped out, accusing Greene of inciting treason and the destruction of the US.
While I don’t generally put much stock in the comments of politicians I think it’s important to address this particular sentiment because it echos the arguments made by the Liberty Movement and the alternative media for many years. It’s just surprising to hear a prominent public figure say what we have been saying for so long.
We’re still at the leading edge of what’s going to become a secession tsunami. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
A movement by east-Oregon conservatives to secede and join Idaho is picking up steam, according to the Daily Mail, which interviewed the movement’s leader, Mike McCarter.
Armed with just $70,000, McCarter has been lobbying for the move in the two states – and has seen allies introduce legislation in Oregon last month. He also has a bill ready to go in Idaho that would accelerate discussions for 15 counties to immediately secede.
“I think people within the United States are watching Oregon’s movement, hoping that it’ll establish a pathway for them in the future,” he told the Mail.
McCarter’s office, adorned with muzzle-loading rifles and the head of a musk deer, “could not be further from the image of Oregon as a haven for woke politics, where a majority voted to decriminalize hard drugs in 2020, where coastal valleys provide the perfect climate for the delicate pinot noir grape and where the liberal lifestyle was sent up in the TV comedy Portlandia,” reads the report.
That is Portland, with its homeless encampments outside artisan doughnut stores.
By contrast, central and eastern Oregon is a land of hardy ranchers, loggers and sawmill workers. Where daytime temperatures dropped below zero at the weekend after a snowstorm.
And where locals say they have more in common with next-door Idaho than they do Portland and its $6 caffe lattes.
‘Our movement is based on values,’ said McCarter, 75, a retired nursery worker who runs courses for people who want concealed carry permits
‘You know, the traditional values of faith, family, freedom, and independence.
‘We don’t want to be catered to by the government. In other words, if my power goes down, I have generator, I have water, everything … food storage.’
As America divides between urban and rural, Democratic cities and Republican hiss and prairies, eastern Oregon is at the forefront of reshaping state lines. -Daily Mail
Let’s hope that either “secede” or “secession” becomes 2023’s word of the year. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
Why is secession considered such an unspeakable thing by so many when it comes to peoples and nations when everyone – literally, everyone – practices it regularly in their own lives?
Who hasn’t left a bad job for a better one? Moved to another place? Parted from friends outgrown? Everyone has done at least one of these things. Many have done them all, more than once. Are they guilty of a moral wrong for having . . . seceded from situations that no longer suited?
Should people remain in dead-end jobs, never try living in another place? Continue to hang out with people one no longer has much in common with? Stay married just for the sake of staying married?
Everyone knows why not.
Because the alternative – staying put – leads to unhappiness, which easily leads to resentment and anger, particularly if the unhappy party is told he must stay and that he will be forced to stay.
This is explosive.
It is why there is divorce. It is why there is secession. Or at least, why there ought to be.
This was understood at the time of the American revolution, which by the way was no such thing. Just as the subsequent struggle circa 1861-1865 was not a civil war, either. Both were in fact attempts to secede from political associations that no longer suited the party that sought to . . . secede.
The first was of course successful. The second, wasn’t.
It is interesting that both were framed as what they weren’t. It is interesting not merely etymologically but also psychologically. It being necessary to evade thought – and thereby, discussion – of the facts of the matter.
Why shouldn’t eastern Oregon become part of Idaho, with which it is much more ideologically aligned? From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:
In recent years, we’ve seen the issue of changing US state borders come up repeatedly. For example, activists in some Colorado counties in 2013 proposed breaking off to form a new state. Since 2021, a similar idea has persisted in having Weld County, Colorado join the State of Wyoming. In 2016, California activists sought a vote on splitting the enormous state into 6 states. It failed to get enough signatures, but in 2018, a similar proposal for 3 new states did get enough signatures. A statewide vote was only avoided because the State Supreme Court panicked and pulled the measure from the ballot with little legal justification.
When activists propose changes to the current boundaries of US member states, a common reaction from supporters of the political status quo is to scoff. “Not gonna happen” is what they often say, and it’s assumed that such measures are both impractical and unnecessary. As usual, we’re told that “democracy” will somehow magically solve any conflicts that have been growing between the states’ metropolitan cores and their distant, outlying frontiers far from the seats of power.
Self-determination is a fine concept as long as the majority of people support the existing government. If they don’t, then it’s a dangerous insurrection. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:
Opponents of secession in the United States often choose from several reasons as to why no member state of the United States should be allowed to separate from the rest of the confederation. Some antisecessionists say it’s bad for national security reasons. Others oppose secession for nationalistic reasons, declaring that “we”—whoever that is—shouldn’t “give up on America.”
Antisecessionists Believe Self-Determination Leads to “Bad” Laws
One of the most popular reasons to oppose secession is that people will pass “bad” laws in places allowed to live under their own governments. That is, we’re told that without federal “oversight” over state and local communities, independent states would deny basic “rights” such as getting an abortion, voting without ID, or guaranteeing that every cake-shop owner is forced to bake cakes for same-sex couples. These independent governments, we are told, would also fail to enforce “progressive” regulations such as bans on fossil fuels and paying workers a federally imposed minimum wage. Therefore, the story goes, these places must be forced—by military means if necessary—to comply with the US government’s mandates and regulations.
Yet far more tolerance is extended to the rest of the world—a place composed of 190-plus independent states—where governments adopt their own laws. Only in a select few cases—think Russia, Iran, and Syria—do we hear that the US government must intervene to ensure—by force, of course—that people in these parts of the world adopt the “right” laws. Everywhere else—as in Peru, India, Canada, or Poland—it’s perfectly tolerable that laws be set locally in accordance with local values. we are told. Those places are democracies, after all, and we’re told democratic institutions establish “legitimate” government.
SLL HAS MANY OF THE SMARTEST AND BEST INFORMED READERS ON THE INTERNET. IT REQUIRES TIME AND EFFORT TO MAINTAIN THE SITE AND FEATURE THE ARTICLES YOU WANT TO READ. PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A PAYMENT AS COMPENSATION FOR THE VALUE YOU RECEIVE FROM SLL. THANKS.