Friday, October 9, 2015

Attack of the metrosexual collectivists.

GQ: ‘F*ck Ben Carson’ For Preaching Self Defense
Why am I reminded of this? "Oh, you vicious brute."


Ed said...

Ben Carson's self-defense action strategy is a variant of this:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The time to form the mindset and strategy and prepare to act on it is before the threat arrives, whether it be terrorists or the secret police coming to drag you off for your opinions, whether it be in public places or in private or on United Airlines Flight 93 over Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001. There is no time to discuss it once the threat arrives.

Are you prepared to defend yourself, or do you choose to be a victim and die?

Anonymous said...

Ben Carson first hit the stage because he said something about healthcare.
All of sudden he has the right stuff to be President? Not hardly. He is a struxtured, handled, candidate.

First out on his own, he tried to tell the world that American's Second Amendment rights depended upon their damn zip codes. He touted the word "need".
He said people in cities didn't neeeeeeeed those evil black rifles.

The pushback was like a kick to the nuts of a horseshoer. And well deserved.
Sorry, but Carson exposed himself right then and there.
Carson may have learned since then his mistake, and he might just even genuinely mean that he was mistaken, hadn;t been thinking it through etc etc but then there it is.

Carson is not Presidential material, PERIOD. He has a lifelong viewpoint that rights are something for government to permission, to allow.

Enough of that garbage.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Anyone coming to the question of government from a long history of private sector success is initially going to be confused by the difference. The private sector is defined by the exchange of goods, the public sector is defined by management of the exchange of harms.

There are in fact useful ways to use economic principles to make sense of the exchange of harms, but the reversal of the signs on the values being measured does do some interesting things to the calculations in terms of what you want to get. For instance, we want to establish an anti-competitive monopoly on violence for exactly the reasons that we want to avoid anti-competitive monopolies on most goods and services, because we don't want the 'price' of violence to go down while the supply goes up ('price' and 'cost' become subject to confusion in the context of negative goods, because they are generally used somewhat interchangeably to indicate a loss incurred, in the altered context they need to be seen in the purely technical sense to be this case the 'price' of violence is the amount of harm someone must 'bid' to receive a given amount of violence in return). On the other hand, a centralized monopoly has the same vulnerabilities to competitive upstarts and innovative disruption whether it deals in goods or harms, along with a magnified moral hazard when it deals with harms. This is why the Founding Fathers opted for a decentralized monopoly which resembles a cartel or a price-rigging association (again keeping the negative sign implications in mind) than the conventional centralized monopoly on force which had formed the basis of most powerful nations throughout history.

However, as probably indicated by the level of comprehensibility of the previous paragraph, the difficulties of translating a successful grasp of private sector principles into appropriate expressions of what the government should do is non-trivial. I don't blame anyone who comes out of the private sector for being initially confused by the fundamental equations of government, which is first and foremost about the exchange of harms, and the best way to create an effective anti-competitive monopoly over the use of violence, which has to function without recourse to an external government, on which nearly all anti-competitive monopolies over goods and services depend. There is the further problem that harms are, by nature (especially human nature), effectively infinite in supply relative to demand (at any given moment, every living person could kill themselves in a variety of extremely painful ways, and those who couldn't would no doubt soon follow with less choice lingering deaths, whereas the sum total effort of humanity as a whole to produce goods and services could not totally satisfy the most extravagant wants of more than a small fraction of the population). So scarcity, the central issue in most conventional economic thought, has almost no relevance to the theories which must govern the exchange of harms.

Carson is too inexperienced in thinking about government to be a serious candidate for President. And long experience in politics is no panacea for that lack. There is a reason that the best candidates are drawn from military backgrounds, it is almost the only kind of practical experience in dealing with the exchange of harms which does not morally disqualify a person from being even considered an acceptable citizen, let alone candidate for high office. But I don't blame him for his inexperience or think it an insuperable obstacle to eventually being a fine candidate for...whatever political offices are still available by then.

Anonymous said...

I would not have said it so harshly, but:

I am of the opinion that Dr. Carson would make a fine Surgeon General. But President? No, I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

Troll journalism is troll. He's preaching to his choir. Check out his Wikipage. Yawn. LoL, down at the "bottom" of his article is a "What Brad Pitt look are you" and "Is Batman more buff than Superman".

Ahahahahahahhah What is GQ's readership? The 100k or so homo's that can't bake their own cake. Of course old boi is going to tell them to wet their panties. It's what sissy faggots do.