Thoughtcrime Laws in Our Future It is established liberal dogma that no right is unlimited. And ultimately that means none is really a right, because those who make law get to decide what a reasonable limit is to the right. Or a judge appointed and approved of by them gets to decide. And neither of them are going to make law and declare the law they made unreasonable, so whatever they decide to do will be defined by them as reasonable, and therefore legal. So there is no real Constitutional barrier even to thoughtcrime laws: Legislative bodies can outlaw thoughtcrime just the same as they outlaw so-called assault weapons, and liberal judges will back them up. All it will take is enough people being talked into supporting thoughtcrime laws, and given what's happening these days I don't think that'll be all that difficult. Imagine the kind of thoughtcrime enforcement imposed on communities like Facebook and in schools by way of PC codes being enforced by real poli...
Popular posts from this blog
First Class Versus Second Class Citizens bearing Arms and The Training Lie People like Hillary Clinton and her rich Hollywood comrades try to deny the right of most of us to keep and bear arms, while they and their loved ones are being protected by guards with guns. This shows how they really feel about whether it’s safer to be armed or unarmed. And it shows whose lives matter to them. In Hillary world, first class citizens are allowed to have armed guards, second class citizens are not. So that raises a question: if the elite are worthy of being protected by armed guards, why are those they look down on as commoners not worthy of armed protection too? One common lie used to justify this double standard is that those who work for government can be trusted and the same applies to the professionals who guard rich people, but second class citizens can not be trusted. This is a lie because American law assumes innocence unless there is probable cause (and ultimately proof) of some k...

Comments
Post a Comment