Thinking isn't their superpower
Government-supremacists aren't good at thinking. They imagine they are, but the evidence is clear that they aren't.
Here are some examples:
1-- Chicago has strict anti-gun rules and high crime rates. Does this mean "gun control" [sic] isn't effective, or that high crime rates cause political bullies to impose strict anti-gun rules in response? Which is the cause and which is the effect?
It doesn't matter. It is unethical to impose anti-gun rules no matter whether you believe it "works" or not. No studies needed. No one has the right to impose or enforce anti-defense/anti-tool legislation.
2-- Do police murder more "black" people or more "white" people? We must argue over who they murder more-- and why it might be so-- in order to prove a point.
No, we don't need to. It's not about "race"; it's about police and policing. Police are a criminal gang even if you are scared to live without them, and this fact matters more than who they are murdering, what causes them to murder, and at what rates the murders occur.
3-- Should schools be allowed to re-open in spite of the risk of Covid-19, or should they be kept closed for safety? What does the "science" say?
Wrong approach. Schools shouldn't be part of government, shouldn't be theft-funded, shouldn't be compulsory, and shouldn't be confused for educational facilities. If someone wants to fund a school, they can decide how to run it. Anyone who doesn't like how it is run doesn't have to chip in and doesn't have to subject their kids to that institution.
In each instance, the statists have erected blinders to keep the questions within parameters that limit the possibilities considered in a way which results in a false "answer". An "answer" that empowers them no matter which way it goes. This isn't so much thinking as plotting against society. Apparently, unethical plotting is easier than doing the hard work of rational thinking.
I could keep going with endless examples but you get the picture. Government-supremacists aren't good at thinking, but they imagine they are. That's a dangerous combination.
I think it's time we give their opinions all the consideration they deserve.
I feel like a SHTF event is imminent. Notice I don't say I think it is, rather it's just a feeling. Possibly triggered by the upcoming election.
I don't have a crystal ball. I'm almost definitely wrong.
If you can see it coming, it's not going to happen. That's almost a guarantee.
Just like the Coronapocalypse came at us out of nowhere, triggered by unexpected government overreactions to a fairly normal virus, a more serious event will also be a surprise. Consider the Coronapanic a practice run. It should have shown you the holes in your preps if you were paying attention.
I lucked out with the panicdemic because I was ready. Well, maybe it wasn't completely luck; I've prepped for years "just in case", and it finally paid off. I was pretty sure I wouldn't see it coming when it finally happened, and I didn't. But it didn't matter because I stay ready all the time-- and I have done so since well before the Y2K fizzle. I intend to be just as ready, if not more ready, the next time something ...
Sometimes it's good to just listen to people's stories without interrupting, even when you know the stories are nonsense.
My 2nd wife used to tell of a ghost that lived in her house when she was a kid. It was an interesting story even though I didn't believe it. I learned quickly that her family was very prone to believe anything as long as it fit with their magical worldview.
Other people tell me stories about beneficial things political government can do. These stories are no more true-- in the sense of being objective reality-- than ghost stories, but they can still be informative if you want to know which particular superstitions a person is living under.
Interrupt and you'll never hear the whole tale. Listen and you might be entertained by some fantastical tales of magical realms. Just don't bet your life on them being true.
My nature is such that I simply can't see government as a solution to anything. This puts me at odds with most of the rest of my species.
Yes, I think "social media" has become a horror. This doesn't mean I want government to regulate it; it means I think people who don't like it (or are too dumb to know not to take it at face value) should probably stop using it.
The same is true of so many other things I don't like.
Litter/pollution, scammers, sexual predators, abortion, animal cruelty, Hillary Clinton, poverty, drug abuse, pandemics, crime, and all manner of awful things.
I may hate them, but that doesn't mean I want government to step in. Look how often that has the opposite effect anyway; making the original problem worse-- or at least not solving it-- while also creating a host of new problems that never would have existed otherwise (anti-gun legislation being a perfect example).
And even if government intervention doesn't make this specific problem worse this particular ...
