Oct 182010
I will very shortly grab the cats, hop in the car and drive a few thousand miles. I will have internet access, so the downloading part of the business will remain up and running; what I won’t have is access to printing services. So the various prints I offer… are no longer offered. When I return home, I’ll fire ’em back up again.
Expect blogging to be abridged for a bit. Perhaps less arguing with the local advocates of total government.
13 Responses to “Temporary Change In Business”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So this is good news on the job front ? At least temporarily ?
Nope, not even a little bit.
Have a safe trip.
Hope things go well and safe travels for you, Scott!
Drive carefully. If you’re headed east, remember that any drivers within an hour of DC are probably blind, drunk, or stupid.
Safe travels, Scott. And sorry. Socialists just piss me off. Especially long winded ones.
And whilst you are on the road! You got to get your self to a Waffle House and order a ham&cheese omelet, grits and an order of hashbrowns scattered, covered, smothered and chunked. It will change you life! Or maybe it will change your luck. I can’t remember which.
Damn! Wish I lived closer to a Waffle House!!!!!!!
Good Luck and Safe Travels! My wife enjoys the photos of of the traveling cats.
“advocates of total government”? Where? I’ve yet to find one here. I have seen right-wingers who apparently want to murder me because of my political beliefs. I’ve also seen anarchists. Perhaps your ire needs to be directed to such extremists or are their viewpoints acceptable to you?
> “advocates of total government”? Where?
Anyone who advocates that the government provide massive programs that clearly exceed Constitutional mandate have automatically put themselves into the category of people who do not recognize limits on government. Anyone who uses such philosophical vaguaries like “social contract” to justify the use of governmental power to extract the blood and treasure of the citizenry for, again, clearly unConstitutional programs again puts themselves into that category.
> I have seen right-wingers who apparently want to murder me because of my political beliefs.
Perhaps o. But you are far more likely to be murdered by Left wing governments for your beliefs. That’s the thing… the Right wing wants the smallest possibel government; the Left wants large government. Small governments do not have the power to carry out pogroms. Large governments do. Governments that require very small revenues do not need to be as bloodthirsty as government that need large revenues.
> Anyone who advocates that the government provide massive programs that clearly exceed Constitutional mandate have automatically put themselves into the category of people who do not recognize limits on government.
Again you adopt an extreme position when faced with a reasonable one. Where have I advocated “exceeding Constitutional mandate”? Your own nation’s Constitution is rather widely written and easily interpreted to almost justify nearly everything. Perhaps you’d care to point out where it states – emphatically – that your federal government is barred from creating social safety net programmes?
>Anyone who uses such philosophical vaguaries like “social contract” to justify the use of governmental power to extract the blood and treasure of the citizenry for, again, clearly unConstitutional programs again puts themselves into that category.
See above. Nothing vague about the concept of a “social contract”. It is something that is clearly understood in Western, Liberal (as in the real meaning of the word, not the corrupted American interpretation of the word) Democratic political theory.
> Perhaps o.
Perhaps? You’ve banned one commentator for making such comments.
> But you are far more likely to be murdered by Left wing governments for your beliefs. That’s the thing…
I am sure that the victims of Right-wing tyranny are satisfied their oppression and murder was aberrant behaviour by the Right wingers.
> the Right wing wants the smallest possibel government; the Left wants large government.
The Right seeks to deny the reality of modern society and wants to live in some strange agrarian utopia ideal.
The Left seeks to accept reality and change it so that it can be some strange, modern utopia ideal.
I just want to live somewhere in the middle, where we have a little bit of both sides. I suspect though, that your idea of where that middle exists is somewhat further shifted to the right than what I believe.
>Small governments do not have the power to carry out pogroms.
Large governments do. Governments that require very small revenues do not need to be as bloodthirsty as government that need large revenues.
Don’t you believe it. Pogroms don’t rely on government to be enacted. The citizens carry them out. Look up who carried out the _last_ Pogrom against the Jews in Poland in 1945 for an excellent example.
Your naivety is rather touching. You don’t even know the meaning of the words you throw around with such gay abandon.
> Perhaps you’d care to point out where it states – emphatically – that your federal government is barred from creating social safety net programmes?
It never grants the FedGuv that power. By definition that means the FedGuv is *not* *allowed* to do so. That’s how the US Constitution works.
> Nothing vague about the concept of a “social contract”.
Then please point it out in the US Constitution.
> You’ve banned one commentator for making such comments.
Yes, a commenter. Oooh, boogity, that certainly stacks up against leftist movements like fascism and communism. Or against recent ad campaigns that call for the dehumanisation and extermination of anyone not enthusiasticly supporting leftist causes.
> I just want to live somewhere in the middle, where we have a little bit of both sides.
That’s nice. But the problem is, the Right would ignore you, but the Left would make demands of you at the point of a governmental gun.
> gay abandon
Again with your sexual innuendo.
> It never grants the FedGuv that power. By definition that means the FedGuv is *not* *allowed* to do so. That’s how the US Constitution works.
Is it? Then how does the FCC or the FAA exist and function? NASA? I don’t doubt there are numerous QANGOs which have been created over the years to administer various aspects of your society which are not named in your Constitution. You seem to think that your nation’s Constitution should be a static document. Why?
> Then please point it out in the US Constitution.
See my answer above. The concept of the social contract was inherently accepted by the framers of the constitution. Thats clear from their belief that the governed consent to be governed, not ruled.
> Yes, a commenter. Oooh, boogity, that certainly stacks up against leftist movements like fascism and communism. Or against recent ad campaigns that call for the dehumanisation and extermination of anyone not enthusiasticly supporting leftist causes.
One commentator proves the point.
> That’s nice. But the problem is, the Right would ignore you, but the Left would make demands of you at the point of a governmental gun.
Funny, I haven’t noticed too may “governmental guns” on the streets in my nation. Perhaps I’m missing something? Oh, thats right, we have a functioning society…
> Again with your sexual innuendo.
Ha, ha, ha. If you think thats sexual innuendo, you must be really, really, uptight if I type really naughty words. %-)
As a Christian, I applaud your disapprobation of advocates of total government. The founders were not far removed in time from the English Civil War, which was fought on religious grounds. The first amendment required the State to stay out of men’s consciences, the others out of their homes, holsters, etc. The country was founded mostly by British Protestants descended from those who had learned their lesson in horrible bloody bloody war on this subject.
I recommend that you read “The Vision of the Anointed” by Thomas Sowell. Actually, I believe that that BrianR person is in more need of reading it.