Everything Is Bigger In Texas except the government

[Speaker to Animals]

I feel like demonizing the concept of the state itself represents a kind of intellectual poverty. What really is the alternative? A king? Barbarian tribes like you read in Canticle for Leibowitz? Or should we just go back to nature as hunter-gatherers?

What amuses me somewhat is to read the libertarians and ancaps try to envision a society based on contracts, but all they really do is envision a different kind of state that emerges out of contractual law -- which is basically what we have.

Love them or hate them, the alt-right do have a point about most of our problems with "the state" arising from the fact that we are not a homogeneous polity. I'd add to that two centuries of the democratic party sewing the seeds of discord and division for political gain (it's basically how they operate and always have done so), so that now they have divided black against white, woman against men, working class against middle class, middle class against entrepreneurs, and so on.

About 90% of Denmark are Danish people. Maybe Bjorn can tell us if they experience the kinds of hatred and animosity between groups in Denmark like he sees in American forums like this one? I suspect it's much more subdued there, and what divisions do exist exist because of class conflict that most often gets fomented by the left. Maybe I am wrong about that. Don't really know.

But the state is not necessarily violence. In America the state is also us. Well, we at least have the power to do something about it if we all collectively exerted our will over it, which after the midterm elections could actually be possible at the state level. When the people have the power and retain their control over it, the state should remain nothing more than their collective will. It's a tool by which a people can accomplish the very big things that make civilizations better than living in the woods. The Roman state built sewers and aqueducts. It's not like those things were profitable for individual entrepreneurs to build. The Incan state turned desert into farmland through their labor taxation system.

The libertarians, it seems to me, like to pretend as though they are like the rugged pioneers who depended upon no man but themselves, living alone with their families on the frontier, defending wives and children with their guns, and feeding themselves through the product of their own labor. But what they really do is enjoy living in complex society, enjoying all the benefits and joys therein. They expect the fire department to show up when there is a fire. If somebody is breaking into their home, they call the police. They like to use things like the internet, which is the product of a massive government research program. One can go on. But it's easy for them for some reason to ignore the fact that they LOVE the fruits of the state they want. But like children, they only fixate on the things that they hate.

Worse of all, they want to take what they can from the state in terms of benefits and security while complaining about contributing anything in return. That's the part that always turned me off of them. It's difficult for me to ignore. It's like a body odor that follows them around everywhere that just doesn't go away and I can't get used to it.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Kochs are fine, no one is blowing 50 db anywhere near them. And for 100 mil your "neighbors" are acres away bet that.

Trust me, rich people fight these wars all the time, they are not immune, the rich are the biggest NIMBY's of them all, I'm actually stunned that the rich people out in Aspen put up with a 50 dBA overnight noise provision, we'd revolt if we had to put up with that around here.

This is true. I grew up upper middle class, but had some friends that were definitely in the top ten percent bracket (or their families were). Those neighborhoods were fucking horrible.

I think Daralon grew up in Windermere, which is an upper middle class hell hole, or at least was back in the 1980s. A lot of suburbanites around major cities are sort of used to this now, but all the way back in the 1980s, that shit town pioneered the idea of putting fucking signs everywhere. They had signs for where you could walk, what you could do, etc. EVERYWHERE. The cops would follow people around and harass them like the beach police in Big Lebowski.

And pretty much everywhere I found, the higher income the neighborhood, the more likely there is a HOA with draconian laws.

[Smitty-48]

The problem with trying to apply libertarian contractual redress to your local governance, is that the vast majority of things which would interfere with the reasonable and quiet enjoyment of your property, do not reach the threshold where it is prudent to seek injunctive relief, most of the time, the courts are not going to be sympathetic to what they would refer to as "trifles", but those "trifles", can actually amount to significant material harm, but just not enough to warrant lawyering up about it, hence, bring on the strict bylaws I say, and it is those who can't get with the program, who need to go isolate themselves out in the "sticks" as clubby puts it, not we the homeowners, who are not bothering anybody, and so would expect not to be bothered in turn, and certainly not bothered to the point that we would have to lawyer up about it.

This is a peaceful and quiet residential area, that's why we bought the properties here, and we expect the local government to maintain the standard and ensure our reasonable and quiet enjoyment of that property, without us having to take it upon ourselves to sue some clowns, just because they don't have the consideration not to make a nuisance of themselves, and if anybody finds our rules to be too strict? They can just fuck off and live somewhere's else then.

In the end, the bylaw is the contract, you agree to abide by it when you move here, but at the same time, it should not be on each individual homeowner to have to enforce that contract seperately, the role of the government in this context, is collective enforcement of the contract, to include injunction as necessary.

[clubgop]

The problem with trying to apply libertarian contractual redress to your local governance, is that the vast majority of things which would interfere with the reasonable and quiet enjoyment of your property, do not reach the threshold where it is prudent to seek injunctive relief, most of the time, the courts are not going to be sympathetic to what they would refer to as "trifles", but those "trifles", can actually amount to significant material harm, but just not enough to warrant lawyering up about it, hence, bring on the strict bylaws I say, and it is those who can't get with the program, who need to go isolate themselves out in the "sticks" as clubby puts it, not we the homeowners, who are not bothering anybody, and so would expect not to be bothered in turn, and certainly not bothered to the point that we would have to lawyer up about it.

This is a peaceful and quiet residential area, that's why we bought the properties here, and we expect the local government to maintain the standard and ensure our reasonable and quiet enjoyment of that property, without us having to take it upon ourselves to sue some clowns, just because they don't have the consideration not to make a nuisance of themselves, and if anybody finds our rules to be too strict? They can just fuck off and live somewhere's else then.

In the end, the bylaw is the contract, you agree to abide by it when you move here, but at the same time, it should not be on each individual homeowner to have to enforce that contract seperately, the role of the government in this context, is collective enforcement of the contract, to include injunction as necessary.

HOA's do that. And you dont need some huge stupid municipal structure to enforce it.

[clubgop]

The libertarians, it seems to me, like to pretend as though they are like the rugged pioneers who depended upon no man but themselves, living alone with their families on the frontier, defending wives and children with their guns, and feeding themselves through the product of their own labor. But what they really do is enjoy living in complex society, enjoying all the benefits and joys therein. They expect the fire department to show up when there is a fire. If somebody is breaking into their home, they call the police. They like to use things like the internet, which is the product of a massive government research program. One can go on. But it's easy for them for some reason to ignore the fact that they LOVE the fruits of the state they want. But like children, they only fixate on the things that they hate.

Yes, StA when you tax people to shit they expect the fire department to show up, and yes when you disarm people they expect the police to show up. There is nothing wrong with a renegotiating of terms. Government is violence just cause that violence gets you things you like doesn't mean it wasn't violence. Many surgical techniques and anatomical medical knowledge come from the holocaust. Yes we all "benefitted" from that doesn't mean we have to repeat the methods.

The narrative of this article and the big government GCFs is just surrender to the big government whims of the liberal busy bodies. It's not going down like that.

[Speaker to Animals]

And.. when the evil state doesn't exist, and your house is on fire, then you just lost your home.

My point is this: If you actually believe in this stuff, then why even enjoy the benefits of civilization? Why not move out into the wilderness and live your life as a truly independent man in the mountains or something? There are people who do that. They don't spend all their time on the Internet talking about it; they actually live it. Libertarians are the kinds of people who like to talk about what it would be like to live in a certain way without ever actually wanting to live that way, even though such a choice is readily available to them.

The part that I find so amusing is how their "solution" to live a comfortable civilized life without a state is to create another state through contracts and call it by a different name.

I just remembered what they remind me of. Did you know that when Thoreau wrote On Walden Pond, he would periodically go back to his mother's house to eat the snacks she made for him? It's exactly like that. You write all this stuff about living the independent life, but you depend upon your mothers to bake you cookies.

[Fife]

https://www.texasobserver.org/the-rise- ... -in-texas/

The Texas Observer (also known as the Observer) is an American political newsmagazine regarded as "the state's leading journalistic voice for" progressivism.

So the "libertarian" city fell to the vagaries of municipal fucking government? Shocking. Great hit piece, Austin faggots.

[TheReal_ND]

lol o he mad

[SuburbanFarmer]

And.. when the evil state doesn't exist, and your house is on fire, then you just lost your home.

My point is this: If you actually believe in this stuff, then why even enjoy the benefits of civilization? Why not move out into the wilderness and live your life as a truly independent man in the mountains or something? There are people who do that. They don't spend all their time on the Internet talking about it; they actually live it. Libertarians are the kinds of people who like to talk about what it would be like to live in a certain way without ever actually wanting to live that way, even though such a choice is readily available to them.

The part that I find so amusing is how their "solution" to live a comfortable civilized life without a state is to create another state through contracts and call it by a different name.

I just remembered what they remind me of. Did you know that when Thoreau wrote On Walden Pond, he would periodically go back to his mother's house to eat the snacks she made for him? It's exactly like that. You write all this stuff about living the independent life, but you depend upon your mothers to bake you cookies.

Thoreau lived in his friends backyard, about 2 miles from mommy. He was no rugged frontiersman.

[Speaker to Animals]