Skyler the Weird
Countryboy JJ
Rick Barton
Wiley Coyote
BooneCountyGirl
What’s Best For You Is Best For The Country
I recently read a comment online that included the directive to “do what’s best for your country.” It doesn’t really matter what the person was supporting, it was the belief by this person that any two people could agree on “what’s best” that got me to thinking.
What is best for our country? Is it to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?
Hardly.
The truth is, there is no right answer. There is no “what’s best.”
Your definition of “what’s best” (for the country, your state, your city, family, or even yourself) may be completely different from mine. Even among people who agree on most things, “what’s best” will never completely be the same. Don’t believe me? Ever been married? On top of that, the more educated and informed we become the more likely it is our own definition of “what’s best” will change over time.
In a nation as large, diverse, and dynamic as America in today’s 24/7 technology-driven world, this maddening drive we are on to discover what’s best (and then get everyone to agree to it) presents ever increasing problems that become ever more magnified. It is no wonder, and should come as no surprise, that as a people we are more divided than ever. It is no wonder our leaders continue to fail in bringing us together. It is no wonder the rule of law is falling apart.
Everywhere, at every turn, during every waking moment, in ever louder voices, someone is telling us “what’s best” and why we should change to do “what’s best.”
Where does this lead?
It leads to large, widely read, national newspapers such as the Des Moines Register publishing articles literally calling for the murder of NRA members and the dragging our political leaders through the streets behind a pickup truck until they “get it”.
It leads to other internationally read newspapers such as the New York Times calling for the complete dissolution of the Constitution of the United States of America.
It leads to members of our government such as CA Senator Dianne Feinstein and Illinois state legislators declaring their intent to physically disarm Americans.
And it leads to US Marines such as Joshua Boston declaring to US Senators that he will never allow his guns to be registered, much less confiscated.
Folks, this is dangerous ground. VERY DANGEROUS GROUND.
Unless we want to continue down this path into violence (and that may be where it ends), we must admit to ourselves that there is no such thing as a one-sized fits all answer to “what’s best”. And, we must find a way to live peacefully with one another in that reality.
Fortunately, there is a solution. It is not easy. It is not moral. It is not religious. It is not secular. It is not statist. It is not popular. It is not political. It is not left. It is not right. It is not safe. It is not secure. And it may, in fact, lead to our extinction as a nation. But … it does not rely on the ability of one person or group to control another person or group, which indicates to me it has a greater chance of success than the road we are on now.
As such, I fear the solution will be roundly ignored. However, this does not change the validity of its promise:
The only way we can peacefully live side-by-side while maintaining our differing and changing beliefs is to respect our mutual liberties; we must allow one another to do and act on what we, as individuals, believe is best without preventing others from doing the same.
In a word, what I am referring to is: Liberty.
By definition, failing the preservation of liberty FOR ALL, one of us (you or I, your group or mine, and so on) will be put down.
Figuratively at best; literally at worst.
Stay with me here. I’m not suggesting some unicorn and rainbows, peace-symbol, dope smoking utopia. Nor am I suggesting we can “all just get along” without some people suffering while others prosper (I can hear my mother now, “It’s always been that way, and things will never change.”). I have already admitted liberty offers no guarantee of success or safety. What I am suggesting is that in the face of all the failure we see before us today, liberty offers us the greatest chance at success in a world where we are otherwise quickly on the path of shooting at one another over forcing people to pull up their pants or forcing others to let gay people get married.
People will always attempt to inflict upon us what they believe is best. In fact, by expressing my opinions as I do, I am attempting to inflict upon you, dear reader, what I believe is best. Of course, because I respect your liberty, I do not require your agreement or acquiescence; our relationship, as author and reader, is completely voluntary. I do not force you to read what I write. I do not force you to believe what I believe. I do not force you to do what I think is best.
But others do. Others, through the use of force, require you to do what they believe is best. With or without your consent.
Some of these people use laws you never consented to. Others, the ones we call criminals, use guns. Both are equally coercive; both depend on violence; both have one intention. Ignore the law and you’ll see I’m right. Those who make laws and force you to follow them without your consent are nothing other than a more polite version of those who skip right to the part of sticking a gun in your face and demanding, “Do what I say, or else!”
In either case, both have the same desire and goal – to force you to submit to someone else’s claim to your liberty.
In order to prevent ourselves from being overrun by those who would use coercion, force or violence against us, and more importantly to maintain peace among the rest of us, we must be able to defend ourselves against whatever another person or group might bring to the fight.
If they bring ignorance, we must be free to bring education.
If they bring intelligence, we must be free to bring our own intelligence.
If they bring coercion, we must be free to bring resolve.
But whatever they bring, we must bring an equal or greater force to bear against it.
And if their force includes a gun, it is our duty to ensure we are free to bring our own to bear.
Liberty demands it. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
In the end, for now, this is what I think is best for our country. I may be wrong, and you may think I’m a nut. And, who knows, I may change my mind later.
But I don’t think so.
I’d rather die standing free than live on my knees. I may submit to a more well armed force, but I will never consent.
You shouldn’t either, lest they make you a slave. And avoiding that… is what’s best.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=12691
Amen! Interesting that the newspaper that felt the need to publish a map of all gun owners as a “public service” hired ARMED guards to protect their building after the backlash…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
FoxNews published a story today quoting several famous ‘reformed’ criminals that said having such a map during their careers would have made life much easier. Ya think?
But I disagree that folks should be mad at the newspaper. They should be mad at themselves for having given their info to the state in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Really?
.
Go buy a gun and tell the Feds you want the gun but you will not fill out the paperwork.
.
Go into a crowded theater and yell FIRE! or HE’S GOT A GUN! when there is no fire and there is no gun. Then tell the judge you were just exercising your First Amendment rights. See how far that gets you.
.
What has been lost in this country is basic respect, manners and the knowledge of what is acceptable minimum behaviour and what is not.
.
Is it acceptable for a person to pull into a gas station, get out of the car with the motor running, windows down with the music system blaring a song containing “motherfucker, cunt, dick, nigger, ho, fuck, suck, etc”, where anyone within 50 feet, including your children can hear it? Or do we just chalk it up to a person’s freedom to do so?
.
I’ve had that happen to me twice in the past three months. All I could do is just shake my head as I watched one of the guys walk into the store to pay holding his pants up so they wouldn’t fall down, all the while I’m listening to a song about a nigger getting his dick sucked by a ho.
.
I’m glad I have the First Amendment to be able to post an actual account of my experience using the very words I heard. I’m also glad Pundit House has no word filter to ban it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I would argue, Wiley, yes. Really. Imagine if the only thing holding people back WAS “respect, manners, and the knowledge of what is acceptable minimum behaviour and what is not.” In other words, imagine if govco and the legal industry were more or less removed from our private dealings with one another. I think you would quickly find a world where people were A LOT more respectful of one another. And those that weren’t, well, nature has a way of taking care of them right quick like. My point is, instead of being free men who protect those who don’t harm others, we’ve shoved dealing with the garbage over to govco, who instead of taking out the trash embraced it. Govco is the one protecting and enabling these idiots because they need them to vote for them. Limit govco to the enumerated powers in the COTUS and we can handle the rest. Manners will get popular right quick. See, in my world, people would respect private property rights or they would get lit the hell up by high speed lead delivery devices. A nations of wussies are we.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where you lose the argument is by using the phrase “I think you would quickly find a world where people were A LOT more respectful of one another”. Is that an America world or global? The Taliban could care less about you and me or whatever respect you think there should be. They would just as soon cut your head off.
.
You said: Liberty demands it. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic…. My son took his oath of enlistment 4 weeks ago and will take his final oath in March before going to basic and as in the first oath, swore to “defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic”. Defending the rights of people to be morons. Defending the rights of people who could care less about whether his music is filled with obscenities and blaring it so anyone within 50 feet can hear it. Defending the rights of people to suck off the teet of the government. Defending the rights of people who try to live a decent life every day and help others when they can.
.
Hey I get your basic premise. I would love nothing more than to eliminate many of the laws and regulations we have today but in the end, it still boils down to personal responsibility, mutual respect and the Golden Rule.
.
Unfortunately many people don’t give a rat’s ass about any of that and neither does the government.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Wiley,
You bring up several good points, and I think you’re just at the point of making a breakthrough on seeing a new way to view the world, so let’s cover each point individually. But before we do that, overall, what I gather from your writing is that you’re like a majority of people in so much as I find you to be goodhearted, respectful, and wanting of a better solution than we have today. But I also see (and this is just my opinion and observation), that most of what you view as needing to change is really just that which goes against your personal belief system. You, like the majority of traditional, goodhearted, hard working Americans, are more pissed off about the behavior of your fellow citizens than you are actually being harmed by their behavior. That is the crux of my argument; we (as a nation) react willy-nilly and legislatively to things that tweak our emotional responses, demanding that govco ‘do something’ about whatever it is that set us off. And this is what I believe is causes the majority of our problems; that being, we are acting on our emotions and using government as a tool to force other people to do what we think is right.
That said, let’s look at each of the particular points you brought up.
Regarding the Taliban and other terrorists: I’ve never been met, seen, or much less been threatened by, a Taliban, so I can’t really say I think too much about them. If they attack me or other people and property I care about – personally and physically – then I’ll start worrying about them. In the meantime, knowing our southern borders are wide open… riddle me this: if the Taliban (and the other ‘terrorists’) are so hell bent on cutting our heads off, where are they? Why aren’t they coming in here in droves? Why don’t we have attacks on American soil every weekend? Do they have a transportation issue? Why are we so scared of a people that operate on a 7th century economic and social system that take up an area about the size of South Carolina? I mean, we kicked the Nazis ass, but we’re destroying our liberties and pocketbooks over these people and can’t seem to win after 10 years and counting? Come on. Something’s doesn’t past the smell test.
Regarding rude people with loud stereos (and other annoying public displays): First and foremost please explain to me how a loud stereo in a parking lot or at a traffic light is harming you. I mean, truly harming you – not pissing you off, not inconveniencing you, not disgusting or offending you, but truly harming you. I would argue rude behavior is not harming you. I agree such behavior is likely indicative of an individual who may display other behaviors that could harm you, but this being your example I would say you might think about how your rights are/are not being violated by what is essentially a dumb ass being rude. I would also ask, a) did you address it immediately and directly with the individual, or b) did you tell the store manager you will not shop at their establishment if they are going to allow such behavior? If you didn’t do these things, then I would suggest you are a) merely complaining or, b) you are relying on someone else (govco) to tackle what you perceive as a problem. This goes directly to my statement, “I think you would quickly find a world where people were A LOT more respectful of one another” and your questioning of it. Currently people displaying rude, disrespectful behaviors do so because they know – or at least have the perception – that we won’t do anything about it. We have not EARNED their respect (or more accurately, we have lost their respect) by letting them know we will put up with such behaviors. If we addressed these behaviors immediately and personally, people’s behavior would change very quickly. You don’t ask your neighbor (a third party such as govco) to punish your dog for messing on the carpet three days after the fact; you deal directly with the dog immediately after fact. Otherwise you end up with a disobedient dog. Though they don’t want to admit it, people are not that far removed from dogs when it comes to behavior modification, and as the USMC taught me, “Discipline is the training that makes punishment unnecessary”. Ultimately, however, the real question remains – what right do you have to tell someone to turn down their stereo in a public place if it is not harming you?
Lastly, regarding your statement, “it still boils down to personal responsibility, mutual respect and the Golden Rule.” I agree, 100%. All we’re really discussing here is two methods of dealing with the lack thereof. I don’t believe the current paradigm is working, nor do I believe continuing down this path will self-correct in the future. My suggestions are merely that, suggestions. Shooting holes in them is fine and even healthy to building a stronger argument for or against them, but I would leave you with this challenge: If we agree the current methods aren’t working, and my suggestions for action fall short, what solution do you have that you can articulate and stand behind that does not violate others’ private property rights?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Wiley,
I thought this after my last post…
1) Get on your brokerage account and purchase a couple shares in Sony. About $22.00.
2) Then the next time you’re in a parking lot and someone is blaring their stereo, walk up to them and say this: “Hey man, sweet sounding stereo you got there. I’m a part owner of Sony and if your stereo ever gets stolen by someone that hears it, we’d appreciate you thinking of us when you go to buy a replacement.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
That’s just corny
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
That is the worst concept ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1