The Four Quadrants of Conformism

Gun ownership is a natural right. You simply do not grasp the meaning of the word "right". It isn't what is in the constitution - that document simply puts a restraint on the US Government from taking away those natural rights.

Healthcare is not a right.

There is no "right" where others actions are required. Such thing cannot possibly be a "right" because it puts an obligation on another person to perform some action - hence, stripping that other person of their natural right to be sovereign over their own body.

A right is not something that can be granted - it simply exists. A right can only be taken away, through violence or the threat of violence.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't have access to affordable healthcare. I'm merely stating the fact that it is not a right.

As I said, the State we have is violent by its nature. I'm suggesting this is not what we want.

You not trespassing on somebody's home because you don't want your own to be treated that way is a great moral to hold, but not shared by everyone. A society can only function like this if people are on the same page - if they share a collective moral framework. Traditionally this was through religion, but these days "god is dead", and large scale immigration has led to societies with no common traditions or moral backgrounds.

In a nation where people have arms, then the most legitimate reason not to trespass in somebody's house is that you don't want to be shot by its owner. The decision to trespass in somebody's home is a choice between your life or whatever you may gain from trespassing. The choice is obvious.

Burglary is quite high in the UK where people don't have arms (or if they do for sport or hunting, they are not allowed to use them for self-defence). It is lower (per capita) in the US.

And self-defence, even if lethal force is used, is never "violence." (A common misunderstanding)

The way individuals should meet their obligations to society is through the non-aggression principle. One should not support any kind of violence, or threat of violence against others. What follows then, is peaceful, voluntary cooperation.

PG's essays are always thought provoking even when factually questionable.

This one is probably both.

I don't disagree with him about the need for advanced societies to protect free inquiry and independent thinking.

But the psychological taxonomy expounded here is simplistic and all the little things he attaches to it, like the psychoanalysis of tattletales, are probably not well supported by much evidence.

That's not what it says. Here's the actual text:

> As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy Grants to give states and localities the technical assistance and planning support they need to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies and other local regulations that contribute to sprawl.

Neither of those eliminate single family zoning for locations that want to keep them.

Here's the actual text of the HOMES act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4808...

It requires communities that receive certain subsidies (community development block grants and surface transportation block grants) to make a plan to address inclusionary zoning. That's also not ending single family zoning; if you want to keep your existing zoning you can, you just can't get subsidized by the federal government to do it.

Also it doesn't even come close to "abolish suburbs". Curious if you still think that was an accurate characterization?

The founder stated that her and her co-founder are "trained Marxists". Their trainer was Susan Rosenberg, former member of the communist terror group M19CO, who happens to now be vice chair on the board of Thousand Currents, the non-profit organization which funds BLM. (After her prison sentence was commuted by Bill Clinton).

They describe themselves as a continuation of the "Black liberation movement" (careful wording to not directly link themselves to the terrorist BLA, who were part of M19CO, but there's a striking resemblance in the demands of the BLA and the BLM).

There are plenty of other "offhand" comments these co-founders have made, declaring themselves to be "anti-capitalist", against the nuclear-family, "abolitionist" (referring to abolishing the police and the state).

Oh, and they keep the best company, as you do: https://twitter.com/abogadosvenezu1/status/12700347462618030...

No rational justification? Perhaps you can point me to something suggesting they're not a Marxist organization? Maybe they once made an off-hand comment in support of private property for example?

If it quacks like a duck...