perhaps a concrete example

automobile ownership & use

personal property has long been taxed by local government as a standard means of raising revenue. (Mr Swede may object to that but then he would not be able to enjoy the many services government offers its constituents, so we will ignore that).

O and then Mr Swede has to pay for vehicle use on public roads. Drat the overreaching government but then he could simply use the car i his own property and never have to pay the associated fees of public use. (however I will assume Mr Swede uses his car for public transportation).

Now Mr Swede says he is a responsible steward of property. Thus we should conclude he would drive on the safe side of the road, pay insurance, stop at stop signs, maintain a safe driving speed, etc. What Mr Swede apparently objects to is the fact the government has to codify what Mr Swede is already doing.

But the regulations were not written for him (since he already complies) but for the moron who doesn;t comply of his own volition. So what Mr Swede objects to is the other guy, who no longer has the right to act without impunity.


ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions