User Profile: 1FreeVoice


Member Since: December 28, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • May 27, 2015 at 8:00pm

    There is a variation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dealing with the fragmentation of knowledge in a society.

    The more centralized control is being exercised the less effectively distributed knowledge can be used to solve problems; the less control is exercised the more free people are to use their distributed knowledge in uncontrolled and unanticipated ways to solve problems. The more freedom, the more effectively reason can be broadly employed.

    The total of all human knowledge and experience can never be assembled in one place to be apprehended by a single person; it is not possible to know everything. Any expert is ignorant of vast data which exceeds anything he does know. Control can be an illusion facilitated by ignoring as irrelevant what you do not know- and you do not know that your ignorance is truly irrelevant.

    see Law Legislation and Liberty volume 1
    Not a quick light read, but very valuable.

    Society is like an ecosystem; trying to control it is like “controlling” nature.
    It is only possible if scorched earth tactics reduce the complexity to something manageable.

    When you resort to scorched earth tactics what you are managing is no longer nature/natural.
    Scorched earth tactics are politically unwelcome in the environment…
    but not the human environment.

  • [1] May 27, 2015 at 7:31pm

    Existing law already covers too many abuses.
    People would be more willing to trust them with more power
    if they did not abuse the power they already have.

  • [1] May 27, 2015 at 4:20pm

    If the buyer does not consider the value received to be greater than the money spent, they will not buy the product… any product. Creating value for other human beings is not a bad thing.

  • May 27, 2015 at 4:18pm

    Can fanatical/violent antisemitism be a subset of ‘convert by the sword’?
    Convert to our view that Jews are @#%$ and you don’t want to be one… or else!

  • [2] May 27, 2015 at 4:02pm

    So (in the free marketplace of ideas) did he try to start a Jewish student group
    … or just get upset about the open sharing of popular ideas he disagreed with?

    Sounds like the latter to me.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 22, 2015 at 2:26am

    accomplishment no
    oopsie – Uh oh….. SH!!! yes

    Would you rather elect an incompetent who means well …
    or someone highly competent with evil intent?

    Next, define evil absent religious connotations.
    How about something reflective of repressive regimes around the world however constituted:

    Peace being the absence of violence or the palpable threat of violence/force against persons and their property including by the State/Government, Evil may be said to be that which opposes and undermines Peace.

    By that standard, how do the Clintons (and Obama) fare?

    I am sure that the use of force and threats of same will be viewed as perfectly legitimate, all they need is a “good reason”. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and political opponents have been targeted by the IRS and other agencies….. ‘It could be worse’ is hardly a comfort to people who fear it may get worse.

    How do the Clintons and their supporters handle detractors?

    The thugs and brown shirts of the Progressives as heirs to some of the tactics that brought Hitler to power is too strong an analogy, but historical comparison may find surprising parallels in some means if not ends.

    The Silencing by
    Kirsten Powers
    Progressivism : a primer on the idea destroying America
    by James Ostrowski

  • May 22, 2015 at 1:46am

    Ummmm…. I think the world has been falling apart for some time.
    Does she get negative credit for this?

  • [1] May 21, 2015 at 11:46pm

    Costs and benefits can be monetary or non-monetary… the beauty of a waterfall in a quiet place away from the sounds of the city and the works of Man is something that a person may want to preserve, the preservation of that quiet space may involve the opportunity cost of building a dam which could produce electricity and/or reduce flood damage downstream. Only the dam would have benefits and costs which are subject to detailed financial calculation, but that does not mean that the beauty of the space is never considered. ALL human decisions are placed in the same scale: will the result be greater or less satisfaction? Is the intended result of someone’s choice of greater value to that person than the greatest alternative benefit being sacrificed to attain it?

    Trade is a mutually beneficial exchange. Both sides must percieve a benefit to themselves greater than the highest other benefit that could be obtained in the absence of that exchange. If the exchange is not mutually beneficial, one side will not want to participate.

    It is simply wrong to use force to try to shape the world more to your preference unless you are being threatened. It is OK if someone is using violence or the threat of it against you, but not if someone is rude or hurts your feelings. It is armed robbery writ small, 10 min. slavery, to force someone to serve you against their will.

  • [1] May 21, 2015 at 11:45pm

    They can easily refund the cost of materials, but the cost of the labor already performed is a loss.

    To use another example:

    If some unhappy customer demanded a refund for their wedding pictures, you might delete the file and give them their money… but if you already paid the photographer for her time, or turned away another customer who wanted that time slot and lost paying business, you are not going to recover that loss except by retaining part or all of the deposit.

    The business in the story lost money trying to avoid harassment and legal charges… which they got anyway.

  • [1] May 21, 2015 at 11:35pm

    Read something by a lefty whose mother CRIED when Regan won the election.
    The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech
    by Kirsten Powers

    There are people on both sides who are perfectly willing to use government force to enforce their views on the rest of the country. There are people on both sides who use slander and defamation to make a source less credible rather than debating the facts.
    (Pot meet Kettle, who you calling ___?)

    The people in the media and other positions that shape public opinion who are doing the most of it do seem to be “liberal”… or rather a fringe of the liberal group who have not been denounced by their fellows, but embraced.
    ( Pot meet Kettle and…. Tank. )

    2 wrongs do not make a right. If you are offended when it happens to you and yours, then the only moral compass that can make it OK when your side does it is US vs THEM. (As opposed to any formulation of the golden rule.)
    That’s no more a moral compass than an assertion that
    ‘whoever has the most votes can enslave the rest.’

  • May 21, 2015 at 11:21pm

    Once upon a time you didn’t need a license or government permission to get hitched. Government got into the marriage licence business to prevent inter-racial marriage. That’s no longer an issue. Why is the government involved in deciding who can have a sacrament of the church today?

  • [1] May 21, 2015 at 10:11pm

    I remember when I first heard about gays in grade school; I thought they were joking with me and I wasn’t gullible enough to fall for it. After all, guys can’t have $3x with each other, there is nowhere to put it in! Oh to be that innocent again….

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] May 21, 2015 at 6:19pm

    I thought that they were supporting the business they chose to, and recommended to others. They liked the services they were getting, and thought that they were getting a good deal… until they learned that the owners disagreed with them on a subject of importance to them. They had their feelings hurt.

    How could such nice people who they had positive dealings with think something so different from what they (should) believe? They obviously need someone to tell them to get in line with other’s beliefs – or shut the *** up about their own.

    It’s for their own good that they must be threatened and harassed into public compliance. Everyone wants to live in a nice society where people do not hurt one another’s feelings! Using force and threats to accomplish this noble goal is a good thing. (sarc)

  • [2] May 21, 2015 at 6:02pm

    Would a Christian couple be able to threaten a gay business for posting a sign supporting “marriage equality” ? Could they threaten a lawsuit for hurting their feelings or “discriminating” against members of religious sects like their own for holding competing views?

    Do they truly have equality under the law? Is freedom of speech allowed, or only when you hold views and speak opinions held by groups with money and lobbyists?

    Government force ( or the threat of it ) is not the best or only solution to every human problem including hurt feelings. !!!

    Everyone has the right to their own thoughts, and the right to speak them. They can be wrong or offensive, or just stupid… but the alternative is for someone else to tell you what YOU are allowed to think and speak. If you hold views supported by those in power at the moment that may not seem like a big thing… but power changes hands.

    ‘If we do it it’s OK, if it is done to us it’s unconscionable.’ There is no guiding or limiting principle there, no sense of right and wrong other than US and THEM.

    It is possible to have guiding and limiting principles other than
    ‘whoever has the most votes can enslave the rest.’

  • May 20, 2015 at 9:13pm

    I’m on pg 137 of 206 in
    Progressivism : A primer on the idea destroying America
    by James Ostrowski

    ^ Recommended read !

    I think his analysis of progressivism as a form of therapy that people use to make themselves feel better and feel safer in an uncertain world full of things they can’t control may be spot on. Emphasis on feeling not being safe, and feeling good rather than doing or being good, etc. It ties in nicely with

    The Pity Party by William Voegeli .
    I really enjoyed We the People : rebuilding liberty without permission by Charles Murray

    Scholarship and logic looked solid even when he was saying things I did NOT like to hear, and his solution harks back to the ’60s and the civil disobedience we missed out on. It was a turbulent time, but there are elements that sounded fun (from a safe distance), and ennobling -standing up for something RIGHT. Part of me hopes I have what it takes to make a hard choice for the right reason. I haven’t had the opportunity yet, which may be just as well if I’m not really as strong as I want to be.

    Mr. Murray has interesting ideas. I see complications and problems, but I also see possibility. ‘Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor’ is a big step for anyone to commit to…most people won’t jump into a fight against big Gov., but some people are already against the wall and could use defenders. Lawyers have families to feed too; a dedicated fund is needed.

  • [1] May 20, 2015 at 8:10pm

    Sorry 808.

  • [6] May 19, 2015 at 11:39pm

    I remember hearing something about the Pentacaust, I think. People began preaching and every person heard in their own language. One group heard something like ‘In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’… Someone else heard ‘In the beginning there was Truth and the Truth was with God and the Truth was God’ and someone else heard another variation depending on whether they were hearing in Greek or Latin, or some other language. The speaker was telling us about the meaning of the quotation in the context and subtext of the languages and culture, the assumptions being drawn on and how/why they were different.

    In God we trust …… In Truth we trust.
    For those who see God as truth, it is our proclamation of faith. For those of a strictly secular bent, it can be the same. One line heard differently by different ears, and ringing true to most of them ( you still can’t please EVERYONE).

    Just a thought’

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] May 16, 2015 at 6:16pm

    Perhaps he knew what to expect, but wanted the guy on public record
    … objective achieved.

    Home schooling now.

  • May 16, 2015 at 6:10pm

    Check your history. States rights were an issue in the civil war, but not in the way that is usually supposed.

    The southern states wanted a stronger central government that could reign in the States helping escaped slaves. Some had passed local/state laws making it harder to retrieve their “property”. One example was that the local law enforcement was supposed to help them catch and return escaped slaves, but at least one place (while accepting that their law officers could hunt for escaped slaves) refused to pay them for time spent doing so.

    War does have consequences and the end results are not always predictable. A strong central government was supposed to bring the independent minded States under control. In that sense, the civil war was won by the south. They got a strong central government with lots of influence/control over the states… the central government just didn’t side with them on the slavery issue and made THEM get in line.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 16, 2015 at 6:51am

    I hear you. I also hear something in what he was saying. She is dissatisfied, trying to change something… she IS unhappy.

    Not all, but many/most women want kids at some point in their lives. There will be conflicts with (anything else in) their lives, some expected others perhaps not. It may not seem “fair” that babies need so much care. It may not seem evenhanded that women are the ones doing so much of the caring. …That does not mean all moms want to spend their days away from their children, missing their first steps, first words, snuggles and smiles, school plays and sick days.

    There are “feminists” who put down women who have different priorities and choices than they want them to have. A woman who actually wants to be there for her kids is viewed as a failure or worse.

    Time and energy spent on A cannot also be spent on B. Time and energy directed consistently toward career goals is subtracted from family, and vice versa. Real feminism should value the choices real women make, not the choices self appointed speakers for the gender want them to make.

    You may like:
    Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species
    by Sarah Hrdy

    Check my other post(s) on this

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love