Flash
01-13-2011, 01:24 PM
Jared Lee Loughner shot and seriously injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He killed a Federal judge, a girl, and some other people.
There's an obvious pattern in statist logic. Consider
Someone had a gun and did something bad. Therefore, non-policemen should be barred from owning guns.
Contrast that with
Some policemen abused their power. There are no systemic flaws that need to be fixed.
or
Bernard Madoff was an isolated bad guy. There's no systemic widespread fraud in the financial industry.
or
Lehman/Bear Stearns/Enron/FRE/FNM/LTCM/etc. were isolated instances of corruption. There's nothing to see here.
It is wrong to excessively mourn a Congresswoman victim, if you don't also mourn the people inappropriately murdered by police. A statist might say "Those people resisted arrest. They deserved to die." or "It's tough being a policeman. They make mistakes."
When an insider commits a crime, there's always an excuse. "It's just one isolated bad guy." When a non-insider commits a crime, the response is "Pass laws that restrict everyone's freedom!" This is particularly true for key State powers, like gun control and spying on people.
Most laws are designed to deal with the worst-case, really bad criminals. The "advantage" is that you restrict everyone's freedom, just to catch a few bad guys. One good example is TSA airport screening, which inconveniences everyone because of a handful of terrorists. It's wrong to restrict everyone's freedom, just because there's a few bad people.
It's wrong to prevent everyone from owning a gun, just because some people would misuse guns. Actually, if everyone is armed, that limits the damage that one crazy person with a gun can do. Some of the people who stopped Jared Lee Loughner were themselves armed, although they didn't use their gun to stop him.
Another theme is "Jared Lee Loughner read crazy anti-government ideas on the Internet. Therefore, we should restrict freedom of speech on the Internet." Also, the "Tea Party"/libertarian faction is blamed, although that doesn't seem to be Loughner's interest. He didn't seem to be a real libertarian or real "market anarchist".
I'm noticing increased anti-freedom sentiment from statists. "People who criticize big government are violent, dangerous, crazy, and racist." That seems to be a blanket excuse designed to shut-down the minds of statists, when they see freedom ideas. If you call someone a racist, then you can safely dismiss any other points they make.
Loughner said that he supported a gold standard, but his ideas were incoherent. He probably thought "Other intelligent people are advocating for gold money. Therefore, I should." He didn't really understand the Austrian economic viewpoint regarding money. The correct answer is "There should be no government regulation of money." Loughner might be an excuse to ridicule all people who criticize State control of money. I noticed "Loughner supported gold!" being mentioned disproportionately too often, compared to other things he did.
Psychopaths and parasites cooperate to enslave everyone. They use government as their tool for control. One explanation is "government monopoly + psychopaths = State". Psychopaths have seized control of the government. That's the reason government's actions lead to evil outcomes, even though a lot of low-ranking government workers have good intentions.
If there were no psychopaths, government would follow the abstract ideal. The problem is that psychopaths have seized control of government. "Color of law" gives cover to psychopath crime. Most Congressmen are psychopaths, along with most high-ranking State insiders.
In every group of people, there's always at least one parasite. They will correct anyone who has deviant ideas. Loughner had partially cracked his pro-State brainwashing. However, psychopaths and parasites were keeping him from discovering the full truth. It's very traumatic, to realize that almost everything you know is a lie.
More at http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner.html
There's an obvious pattern in statist logic. Consider
Someone had a gun and did something bad. Therefore, non-policemen should be barred from owning guns.
Contrast that with
Some policemen abused their power. There are no systemic flaws that need to be fixed.
or
Bernard Madoff was an isolated bad guy. There's no systemic widespread fraud in the financial industry.
or
Lehman/Bear Stearns/Enron/FRE/FNM/LTCM/etc. were isolated instances of corruption. There's nothing to see here.
It is wrong to excessively mourn a Congresswoman victim, if you don't also mourn the people inappropriately murdered by police. A statist might say "Those people resisted arrest. They deserved to die." or "It's tough being a policeman. They make mistakes."
When an insider commits a crime, there's always an excuse. "It's just one isolated bad guy." When a non-insider commits a crime, the response is "Pass laws that restrict everyone's freedom!" This is particularly true for key State powers, like gun control and spying on people.
Most laws are designed to deal with the worst-case, really bad criminals. The "advantage" is that you restrict everyone's freedom, just to catch a few bad guys. One good example is TSA airport screening, which inconveniences everyone because of a handful of terrorists. It's wrong to restrict everyone's freedom, just because there's a few bad people.
It's wrong to prevent everyone from owning a gun, just because some people would misuse guns. Actually, if everyone is armed, that limits the damage that one crazy person with a gun can do. Some of the people who stopped Jared Lee Loughner were themselves armed, although they didn't use their gun to stop him.
Another theme is "Jared Lee Loughner read crazy anti-government ideas on the Internet. Therefore, we should restrict freedom of speech on the Internet." Also, the "Tea Party"/libertarian faction is blamed, although that doesn't seem to be Loughner's interest. He didn't seem to be a real libertarian or real "market anarchist".
I'm noticing increased anti-freedom sentiment from statists. "People who criticize big government are violent, dangerous, crazy, and racist." That seems to be a blanket excuse designed to shut-down the minds of statists, when they see freedom ideas. If you call someone a racist, then you can safely dismiss any other points they make.
Loughner said that he supported a gold standard, but his ideas were incoherent. He probably thought "Other intelligent people are advocating for gold money. Therefore, I should." He didn't really understand the Austrian economic viewpoint regarding money. The correct answer is "There should be no government regulation of money." Loughner might be an excuse to ridicule all people who criticize State control of money. I noticed "Loughner supported gold!" being mentioned disproportionately too often, compared to other things he did.
Psychopaths and parasites cooperate to enslave everyone. They use government as their tool for control. One explanation is "government monopoly + psychopaths = State". Psychopaths have seized control of the government. That's the reason government's actions lead to evil outcomes, even though a lot of low-ranking government workers have good intentions.
If there were no psychopaths, government would follow the abstract ideal. The problem is that psychopaths have seized control of government. "Color of law" gives cover to psychopath crime. Most Congressmen are psychopaths, along with most high-ranking State insiders.
In every group of people, there's always at least one parasite. They will correct anyone who has deviant ideas. Loughner had partially cracked his pro-State brainwashing. However, psychopaths and parasites were keeping him from discovering the full truth. It's very traumatic, to realize that almost everything you know is a lie.
More at http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner.html