shopify analytics tool

Making your own choices

You're perfectly capable of making your own choices.

The real question is why politicos don't want you doing that.
— NeoWayland
Comments

Allowed economic choices

The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.
— NeoWayland
Comments

NeoNote — Flow of value

Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Comments

Do good

People don't do good because of the law. People do good because it's the right thing to do. People choose good because it makes the World a little better than it was. It's the choice and the action that makes a responsible adult.
— NeoWayland
Comments

History changes

History changes not because of Great People doing Great Things, but because of ordinary people choosing extraordinary things.
— NeoWayland
Comments

History of men

Your job is to provide access to all ideas so people can make their own choices.

Read More...
Comments

NeoNote — Virtue is a choice

Virtue isn't doing the right thing when there is no choice. Virtue is choosing and then doing it because it is the right thing.

That means the choice has to exist. It also means some people are going to make choices you don't like.

Without choice, it's not virtue. If you take the choice away, you're telling the person that you don't trust them and they aren't fully human.

Stuff happens, You can't change that. You can only try to make the World a little better than how you found it . Do you want people who can make the right choice? Or do you want ignorant children who don't know any better?
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Comments

Rite to right

I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.

Read More...
Comments

NeoNote — Someone made the choice for you

Someone else decided that obviously you couldn't be trusted to make the Proper Choice.

Read More...
Comments

Regulations

Regulations exist so politicos can evade responsibility for unpopular choices.
     — NeoWayland, technocrat
Comments

Because I can't be trusted

Under your arguments, it's a choice between benevolent authority and slavery. For My Own Good, of course, because I can't be trusted to decide what is best for me.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Making the personal political

The problem with making the personal political is that you drag everyone around you into politics, whether they want to be or not.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Censorship & corporate virtue signalling

So the big news is that Apple decided to remove the Alex Jones Infowars podcasts. YouTube and Facebook followed. Twitter did not.

Alex Jones is wrong almost all the time. He's not worth your time or mine. Infowars is not a good source.

Absolutely these companies have the right to decide who does and does not use their platform. It's their money after all.

But they are hypocrites when they declare that they support free speech while applying selective censorship. Especially if they allow the Islamist, the anti-semitic, the anti-conservative, the antifa, and the anti-white stuff to stay on their platforms.

That's the problem with hate speech. Somehow it's always about what the other guy said, never about what you said.

And all this still overlooks the obvious. If someone doesn't like what is in a podcast or a video, they don't have to pay attention.

Demanding it's removal for the greater good is the coward's way out. It means you don't trust someone to make their own choices. You want to meddle. You wouldn't stand for it if someone else did it to you.

People should choose for themselves. Corporations have lousy morals.

Comments

NeoNote — Socialism, fairness & choice

There was a late night bull session I attended. One very drunk person announced, very authoritatively, "Socialism is jealousy."

Then she passed out.

She may have had a point.



I'll go you one farther. There are studies that show primates have a strong sense of fairness. Some other studies show the fairness idea is linked to play in wolves and coyotes. I've seen speculation but no mention of studies that the idea exists in elephants as well. Taken together, these may indicate that it is part of the biology, at least for social animals.



I'd say it relies on control and orientation in time. Given that it's extremely difficult to control other's behavior except through force, someone who is past-orientated will choose coercion and false signals. Especially if their behavior was controlled in the past.

Future orientation and risk taking are more likely to depend on cooperation. Especially if one doesn't have the resources to pull off the future alone.

Going forward, power with beats power over. But someone stuck in the past won't see that. As for the "leaders," they're gaming the system and don't practice what they preach. "But just do as I say, don't do as I do," as the old Genesis song says.



Everyone who lives in America is a socialist to some degree.

True. But did they choose, or was it chosen for them "for the greater good?" In many cases before they were born? Did they ever have an alternative choice? Were they even allowed to think about it?

That's how socialism works. It's always involuntary except for those calling the shots.

It’s just that the rank and file among us don’t have $12 billion to buy votes from farmers we’ve screwed over.

If he had bought votes, the farmers wouldn't be screwed, would they? You've moved beyond mixing metaphors here, you're mixing conspiracy theories.



Your premise about vote buying is wrong. There's plenty to criticize about Trump's tariff strategy (which I've done), but there was no vote buying. That's the problem with most of the accusations against Trump. The loudest people ignore what Trump has done and blame him for things he hasn't done. You can't buy votes after the fact. And you keep overlooking all the other people adversely affected by the tariffs.

I used the word choosing because we are supposed to live in a representative government. Socialism removes choice. Socialism removes freedom. Socialism removes prosperity. The only reason why the United States works economically is because of the partial free market. The free market works. The free market works better than anything else in history. The only reason Americans can afford even partial socialism is because of the abundance produced by the free market.

So are Americans socialist? Yes, but not from choice. Someone had to do it to them. Someone had to lie to them about what they could get. Someone else had to pay the bills. Would Americans choose socialist programs? I don't think they would if they understood the costs.

I didn't claim you wrote anything about choice. I asked about choice. That's not words in your mouth, that's a question you don't want to answer.
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Comments

Religion enshrined in law

I'm not demanding that you give up your faith.

I'm asking why religion should be enshrined in law.

Faith is between you and the Divine, no other person can change that. It's up to you and your choices.

I'm asking for no sacrifice unless you believe that your religion should govern the faith and religion of others.

And if that's the case, I'm asking why.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Wholly remarkable

The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.

It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.

Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.

They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

NeoNote — effectiveness of public schools

We're so conditioned to accept public schools as a Good Thing™ that we resist looking at options.

Read More...
Comments

Government action displaces private action

Government action displaces private action. If government does something, it's not because they do it more efficiently or more humanely or whatever the justification is. It's because government uses the law and the implied use of force to keep anyone else from doing it.

We know that choice and the free market work because even a partial free market over time delivers things faster, cheaper, and with a wider distribution. The same can't be said for government
     — NeoWayland
Comments

NeoNotes — compel an individual

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

About the O'Donnell witchcraft thing

This is a page from the original version of Pagan Vigil. There are some formatting differences. Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C127135145/E20100920142330

About the O'Donnell witchcraft thing

What does it say about Bill Maer? - updated

Gather 'round, friends and neighbors. I'm about to tell you what a Real Live Pagan® thinks about Bill Maher's "witch hunt."

The story is not that Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft during high school and decided it wasn't for her. Regardless of your personal beliefs, it's still about personal choice and personal responsibility. O'Donnell made her choice.

No, the story is that Bill Maher is okay with witchcraft until he can use it to embarrass someone who doesn't share his politics.

Think very carefully about the implications of that.

Maher exemplifies a certain liberal/progressive mindset. According to the "grand accepted wisdom," minorities are okay as long as they do what they are told and don't get in the way of their betters. In my experience, that extends to minority faiths. We're supposed to be on call for the dog and pony shows, but not to make too much fuss otherwise.

And if you think I'm off base, go watch some more of Maher's show.

For extra credit, see how many other high profile media liberals share the same attitudes.

Oh, Jason Pitzl-Waters of the Wild Hunt Blog gives his opinion here, and does a roundup of Pagan reactions here.

Update - I left out one word and implied that I knew O'Donnell. I don't, and up until this mess I hadn't followed the Delaware race. Blame it on chronic insomnia and limited time. My fingers don't always keep up with my brain, and I overlook typos when I am rushed.

Posted: Mon - September 20, 2010 at 02:23 PM

A class="pvc" HREF="http://www.paganvigil.com
Comments

NeoNote — Achievement

Odd tactic from the Grand and Glorious Imperious Leader

Read More...
Comments

The Nannystate rides again!

This is a page from the original version of Pagan Vigil. There are some formatting differences. Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C322448388/E4543350

It's for your own good!

A friend pointed this site out to me.

My question, why don't people who are lactose intolerant just avoid milk products?

The answer is that according to these people, folks can't be trusted to make up their own minds. And it is a chance for lawyers to make money and certain people to get a lot of media attention. Even if the money is awarded, the chances of those who suffered actually getting more than a token payment is very small.

Why is it that people who want to do something for your own good won't trust you to make the choice?

Posted: Mon - August 15, 2005 at 07:50 PM

Comments

A choice that is imposed is no choice

A choice that is imposed is no choice. Religion imposed in the name of “freedom and decency” will be neither free nor decent.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Find things we share

We need to find things we share rather than using faith to define the morality of our society. We can agree to outlaw theft and vandalism, we can't agree on marriage. We can agree that people shouldn't drive under the influence, we can't agree to ban all intoxicants. We can agree that people should be free to make their own choices, we can't agree which choices should be eliminated.
     — NeoWayland, United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics
Comments

Find things we share

We need to find things we share rather than using faith to define the morality of our society. We can agree to outlaw theft and vandalism, we can't agree on marriage. We can agree that people shouldn't drive under the influence, we can't agree to ban all intoxicants. We can agree that people should be free to make their own choices, we can't agree which choices should be eliminated.
     — NeoWayland, United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics
Comments

Eliminating choice

Rather than eliminating choice, we should make sure that the consequences are clear.
     — NeoWayland, United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics
Comments

Right choice

If you have to make the "right choice" for someone, you're taking away their freedom. You're taking away their right to be wrong. You're taking away their opportunity to learn from their mistakes. You're taking away their judgement. You're saying they aren't fully human. You're saying that they can't be trusted.

And you're saying that your beliefs can't compete.
     — NeoWayland, United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics
Comments

Human Choice

I'm certain that these people do not have demonic hordes from realms infernal on speed dial, nor are they in direct contact with your Prince of Lies.

I'm equally certain that there will not be a heavenly host to put right what once was wrong, and that you didn't get marching orders directly from on high.

The manifestation is human.

The problem came from human choice and the solution has to come through human choice.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Charity

If I choose to give, that is charity and can be celebrated. If I am manipulated or threatened into giving, that is extortion. I don't care how good the cause is, if I am required to give without my consent, that threatens my freedom. I shouldn't be tricked into it “for my own good” or “for the greater good.” I want to know WHY, and I want an honest answer. I demand the choice to walk away.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Conservaties, progressives, & sex

When it comes to sex, conservatives want to deny choice and progressives want to deny responsibility. I want a world with both.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Choice of faith

Faith is nothing without choice.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Free market

I believe that the free market is the most potent force for organizing and creating yet discovered by humans. It cannot be managed, predicted, directed, or controlled.

It rests on choice without coercion. And to keep customers happy, you have to at least do as well as your competition, better if you want to expand.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Free to choose

It's no secret that I believe that free market ideas apply to any human exchange.

Free to choose. It's not just for economics anymore.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Faith cannot be given

Faith cannot be given. Faith cannot be taken. To mean anything at all, faith must be chosen freely.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Free to choose

I am free to choose and free to take responsibility for myself. I am not a child to be threatened into submission. I will not blindly accept your mandates when the Divine and the World beckon.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Threat

A choice made under the threat of force is no choice.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

from crux № 11 — Ultimate truth

I've seen the arguments in enough other contexts to distrust anyone who claims rationality prevents any opposing view. Even more so when they dismiss any other possibility unheard because they have the Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned.
     — NeoWayland
Read More...
Comments

Worthy

The worthy choices are never the easy ones.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Worthy of freedom

The only faiths worthy of freedom are those freely chosen.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Right choices

I want to talk about the curious restrictions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Read More...
Comments

“Make Mine Freedom (1948)”

Animated classic from 1948 shows the politics of disunity

Read More...
Comments

NeoNotes — Government doesn't compete

There's no incentive to make it better

Read More...
Comments

NeoNotes — Reciprocity

Pardon, but that’s not necessarily true. Aside from the obvious “Might makes right,” it’s also possible to build a moral system based on the Ethic of Reciprocity.


I'd argue that in peacetime, there are very few times that reciprocity doesn't apply, at least in the long term. You want to screw with the people around you, they will remember and be less likely to deal with you in the future. (There was a great Bill Whittle essay on this that I used to point people at, but it's not online anymore).

What is the origin of those rules?

That is a great question. The practical part of me would ask does it matter as long as the rules work?


Not just Christianity.

In our opinion, the greatest failure of many organized religions is their historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers like themselves. It is our group's belief that religions should stress that their members also use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, other genders, other cultures, other sexual orientations, other gender identities, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

Crimes against humanity require that the victims first be viewed as subhuman and the as not worthy of life. If the Ethic of Reciprocity is applied to all humans, then no person or group of persons can be seen in this way.



The whole point of that quote was that many organized religions use an ethic of reciprocity but do not extend their definition of people to members of other religions. In other words, the "elect" have privileges (and implied Wisdom™) that "mere unbelievers" do not.

Reread the quote.

We have one race and that's human. If it's really about reciprocity, we're obligated to recognize the worth of others.


And if someone doesn't believe in your eternal judge, don't you face the exact same questions?

It's not my place to say if your God exists or if He may judge you or indeed if He cares what color shirt you will wear next Saturday. That's between you and Him.

Likewise, it's not your place to say the same thing about my gods.

Which means the only things we have to build a society and culture on are the things we have in common. If that's not going to be a shared belief in a specific aspect of Divinity, what's left?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or my preferred version "Be excellent to each other. And party on, Dudes!"


I'm asking about how, absent a transcendent signifier, anything means anything.

I can't answer that for you. I don't believe anyone can answer that for another person.

If you believe, there's no doubt that will shape your thoughts and actions. If you believe in a different Divine aspect, that will shape your thoughts and actions differently. If you don't believe, your actions will still be shaped by belief.

It's a question of faith. We may not share faith. Does that mean we can't share a culture or a society?


I was updating one of my blogs and I ran across an entry from this site that I made. I thought it was good so I quoted it on my site a few weeks back. The line also applies here.

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.


I think the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice without the threat of punishment. Or perhaps despite it.

We know that's possible. Under the right circumstances, we even revere the people who did that as saints and heroes.


One may also choose to honor it, cherish it, and nourish it.

It's a matter of choice.

So tell me, is morality stronger when one chooses it? Or is it stronger when one holds a gun to another's head and says "Do as I say or else!!!"

Isn't morality really about making a choice?

If it's made under duress, doesn't it cease to be moral?

If morality is really a choice, then people will make choices you do not like. The next question is what do you intend to do about them?


I'm not an atheist.

Again, if it's a choice made under duress, is it really moral?

If morality can only exist by force, what's the point?


I can see your point, if the rules are transcendent, then they are universal.

But if that guy over there doesn't believe the rules are transcendent, then for him they won't be. That's true regardless.

And then you get into the arguments over which particular Deity wrote the rules and what the "civilized people" are going to do with those folks who do not believe.

That's an incredibly dangerous path to take.


One thing I've learned is that when it comes to enforcing morality, it's almost never a god that does it. It's people who claim to to speak for the Divine.

Inevitably, that leads to arguments over which god is in charge. Funny how that leads to political power for a certain priesthood.

Religion is not the reason, it's the justification.


I disagree. I think the core of civilization is cooperation, not force. Positive not punishment.

Although I differ from most libertarians when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, I believe that relying on force alone will create disaster.

Is morality transcendent or man-made? That's ultimately unanswerable on anything except a personal level. Practically, it only matters if I can trust you and you can trust me.


A couple of years ago I asked on this site if someone could be a "good" man if they weren't Christian.

I don't think force is a foundation of civilization.

What do I base trust on? Past behavior if I have a history with you. The chance to make things a little better today if I don't.

It's an act of faith. *grins*

You know, we’ve had this discussion before. Somehow, I don’t think either of us has changed our views since then.


Hah! I found it. I misremembered what I wrote. Perhaps the question bears repeating here.

Is the only source of accepted morality Christian?


I'm talking about honoring, cherishing and nourishing a moral philosophy. There's not much subjective about it.

If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't kill others.

If I don't want to be hurt, I should not hurt others.

If I want nice stuff, I shouldn't take or damage other people's stuff.

The best way I can protect myself is to stand up for others when I can.

This isn't because of some priest hiding behind a sacred text. This is because I live in the World with other people.


I agree with you.

My grandfather's funeral taught me that the measure of a man was how he touched the lives of others.

As a person of faith myself, I believe in the Divine and I do devotions. I believe that reaching beyond ourselves is how we become better and make our world better. It's the Manifestation.

I just don't think that's the only choice. class="ghoster">

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Comments

Adequate

Mind you I still wasn’t getting the service I paid for, but it was so much better than what I’ve had for the last few months. I almost caught myself sending them a thank-you.

Read More...
Comments

Abundantly clear

The free market doesn’t have government regulation.

Read More...
Comments
2019       2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005