28 Comments

You sum up why the American government hates the Second Amendment.

The actual use of weapons by citizens is relatively limited, but the few times that citizens resist, terrifies government (Waco, Ruby Ridge).

Also explains why cops move in packs.

Anecdotally, more citizens are contemplating the circumstances under which they will use their weapons.

Still a tiny percentage, but enough to frighten government into reacting with overwhelming force (January 6 prosecutions).

But cops and their families live among citizens, which make cops uniquely vulnerable if citizens are angry (which is why Franco had his Guardia Civil and their families live in segregated compounds).

More people are contemplating the previously unthinkable.

Expand full comment

Very insightful read. I'd like to think if more adopted this framing our political enemies couldn't so easily get away with their morally outrageous behavior of routinely advocating for their self-interest to be imposed via violence perpetrated against the innocent.

Expand full comment

Facts.

I work in intentional communities.(communes) where they try to practice " non violent" communication and conflict resolution.

It's a failure.

The person who mentally brow beats the rest of the group down , wins.

Expand full comment

Bro! You nailed that! Bravo! We love to think we are so enlightened. The powers use that bullshit to keep us guessing. None of this is hard, it’s instinct. We just keep letting intellect get in the way.

Expand full comment

Re: “The uneasy realization that the “social contract” can be unilaterally violated or revoked by anyone at any moment, without announcement but, merely the flash of a dagger in the dark.”

And: “And any misstep by that Sovereign power or by the subject themselves, could tear that fabric thin shelter they’ve found, and cast them out back into the state of war.”

During Covid the social contract was destroyed. People were lied to about a threat; prevented from free movement and association; confined to their homes on the whim of governments working on behalf of vested interests; subject to demands for invasive testing; masked/muzzled into subordination; subject to surveillance with privacy denied; and pressured, coerced and manipulated, and even MANDATED, to submit to injections against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people.

It is UNBLOODYBELIEVABLE this happened in supposed ‘free’ countries.

It happened without the voluntary informed consent of the people - there is NO VALID CONSENT.

Now we need to methodically pursue those individuals who destroyed the people’s freedom.

See for example my notification about the Chief Medical Officer of Australia, Paul Kelly, re the violation of voluntary informed consent for Covid-19 vaccination: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/notification-to-ahpra-re-medical-practitioner-paul-kelly.pdf

Expand full comment

And as Adam Smith put it: "The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever."

What we have now in America is rule by Pfizer, which demanded injection of their expensive product, the dangerous and ineffective toxxine, into everyone, and to be paid for by taxpayers.

Pfizer controls most research via the revolving door and funding at the FDA, NIH, etc, and so there is very little opposition from actual researchers, who want to retain funding.

In 2018, Pfizer was the biggest advertiser on TV, spending $1.1 billion, double the amount of the second-biggest advertiser, AbbVie, a similar criminal organization. So there is literally zero news about the extreme danger of the toxxine on TV.

Pfizer is also a massive donor to political campaigns, giving Trump $1M for his inauguration party. This is why Trump still fails to admit that the toxxine is a dangerous failure. Biden is yet worse, mandating the injection of that slime into all US military members.

Ultimately, everyone who pushed or mandated the toxxine *must* be tried and hanged for the single worst crime against humanity ever. Yes, this is violence, but it is eminently just violence against a genocidal corporation and its many criminal agents.

Expand full comment

I think We should distinguish a legalate ("law") and a Law. There are only three Laws, and We all should be prepared to arrest One who has good reason to be suspected of breaking one or more. The legalates are so many no One knows how many there are.

When it comes to any legalate that does not deal with an actual Law, You nailed it!

The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):

1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther

2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone

3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)

Expand full comment

Re “John Milton’s Meditations “On Liberty””

Do you mean John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’?

Just did a search on ‘John Milton On Liberty’, which brought up:

What is John Milton's most famous quote?

“All is not lost, the unconquerable will, and study of revenge, immortal hate, and the courage never to submit or yield.”

That’s useful to be reminded of!

Expand full comment

What's your reasoning for calling Haidt a hack? I rather enjoyed The Righteous Mind

Expand full comment

Great stuff. The basics of this should be taught to all our kids. The state demands a monopoly on violence. So, the more power you have, the less the state likes it.

Expand full comment

Thanks for your post...just want to point out your reiteration of politics,economics,politics,economics...I have never understood how academia was able to separate this combined actuallity...Economics-Politics.

Expand full comment

Plato's Republic is dedicated to this very question: Why are ruthless people (rather than wise philosopher-kings) always the ones with power? You can't just say "the government is violence," because it ignores any moral distinction between self-defense (or defense of the innocent) and unprovoked aggression.

Expand full comment

Bismarck, Napoleon, Jefferson, Ivan IV and the inimitable Genghis Khan endorse this article.

Expand full comment

It's always entertaining explaining to people how the little social rituals and traditions are always the way they are because of the historical omnipresent threat of violence.

I was once visiting a friend's grandma during a cross-country drive, and she was wowed by the fact that I knew how to set a table correctly. I went on to explain why the knives and forks are placed where they are, and oriented like they are, and why it's rude to set your knife on your plate with the blade facing outwards.

She was considerably less excited afterwards.

Expand full comment

> All discussions of politics is inevitably, and CAN ONLY BE, a conspiracy to commit violence.

I accept your premise that politics is premised on the threat of violence, but it is also true that some politics (e.g. support of deregulation) is a conspiracy to commit _less_ violence.

Expand full comment