Again And Again

I keep wondering.

Why are so many things national issues?

The wisdom of the founders is often profound and if we'd just operated their design as intended, we'd all be far happier.

Federalism was built in by design so that a solution that worked great in one place, but not in another, could be put into place where it worked, but not impose it on the place where it didn't.

I'm not the first, or smartest, person to note that we're not working for more liberty at any level of government.

Always less.

Always more restrictive.

Never more freedom.

It makes me bitter that the people who're demanding more liberty to be at the fringes without repercussions for being so far out there are also demanding that nobody have the liberty to NOT be in the fringes.

I'm a compassionate person.  If your crazy is high-functioning, I'm pretty much OK with going along with your crazy because high-functioning crazy isn't dangerous crazy.  There's no moral high-ground to take and oppose the crazy here.

Lots of people make the mistake that crazy is a binary thing.  So the high-function crazy is the same as low-function and non-function.  They then erect moral constructions to justify being discompassionate to the crazies.

A lot of this response has to do with the people who're advocating that all crazy is high-functioning and should be allowed without sanction.

Their goal is to force you to think, or at least act like you do, like them.

Nationally.  Perhaps even internationally.

The fact that make no allowance for a different kind of high-functioning crazy than their own is, alone, a reason to oppose them.

You've read our nutters.  You know who they are.

But we never say they should NOT exist, we just gently wish they were less crazy about being on our side.  If they get too strange, we change the channel or stop visiting their blog.  We don't call up their service provider and demand they be silenced.

For freedom and liberty to flourish you ABSOLUTELY MUST let the crazies talk.  You might not want to elect them to be dog catcher, but you need to let them speak.

Most of the time, it reveals how crazy they are and at what level they're functioning.

By silencing part of the crazies, you create the illusion that the remaining crazies are, in fact, sane.

But it's an illusion.

In the long run, creating and maintaining this illusion hurts everyone but a very small group of people intent on power.

The real trick is to notice that The King hasn't enough arrows to slay all of the peasants should they say, "fuck this!"  It doesn't even take all of them to revolt to accomplish this.

The threepers are fond of pointing out that just 3% in revolt wins the rebellion.

I ask them, while they sit at their computers (like I am), "What percentage is in revolt on the other side?"

Is it 3%?

It might be.

They seem to be winning.