❝❝If we weren't better than this, this wouldn't bother so many people.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ better than this ∙ cross posted

❝❝When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.❞❞

— NeoWayland NeoNote — Abortion is not about women's rights

Tags: maxims ∙ two and only two ∙ cross posted

““I have two guns in my household for self-defense, just so you know.””

— Alyssa Milano

Tags: Alyssa Milano ∙ guns ∙ self defense

““Americans are pretty easy-going. But push them too far, and they will remind their would-be “betters” that they are citizens, not subjects. That’s who “we” are.””

— Chuck de Caro, What Do You Mean, ‘We’?

Tags: Chuck de Caro ∙ Americans ∙ subjects ∙ citizens

❝❝Strictly speaking, what makes you think the apple was unintended in that myth?

---

Think about that very carefully for a moment.

Although never explicitly stated, the implication is that nothing could happen in that garden without the approval of it's Creator. That includes the existence of the tree, the existence of the fruit, the existence of the "serpent," and the curiosity of Eve.

So the "Creator" didn't know the possibilities and what would happen, wasn't the real "Creator" (as some Gnostics believed), or the garden was never supposed to be anything except a transitory state.

This last is the commonly accepted alternative. Eden is a metaphor for childhood, something that must be put aside if the person and the culture is to survive. It's not about the "Fall," it's about adaptation and outgrowing what was once enough.❞❞

Tags: myth ∙ Eden ∙ apple ∙ unintended consequences ∙ metaphor ∙ Christian ∙ Gnostic Christianity ∙ growth ∙ adaptation

❝❝Political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ political orientation

❝❝Within our borders, absolutely we should have Truth, Justice, and the American way.

Outside, no. We should be an inspiration, not a hegemony.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ 9-11 ∙ inspire ∙ require ∙ meddle ∙ United Fruit Company ∙ Hawaii ∙ Iran ∙ military intervention ∙ taxpayer funds ∙ Muslim ∙ 20th Century ∙ America ∙ honor ∙ Character ∙ hegemony ∙ reputation ∙ Truth Justice American Way ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ alphabet agencies ∙ conservatives ∙ goverment ∙ culture ∙ liberals ∙ Obamacare ∙ passion ∙ Isaac Asimov ∙ Roy Moore

❝❝Measure a man in the lives he touched.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ man ∙ lives they touch

❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.

I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.

---

Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?

Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.

You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.

After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.

---

If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."

I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.

That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.

So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?

---

The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.

That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?

---

Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.

This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.

Should I go on?

I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.

---

There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.

You think winning is the answer.

I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.

Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.

Pointing at you.

Laughing.

And you won't be able to touch us.

Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.

---

If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.

And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.

---

Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.

The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.

---

Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?

---

It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.

I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.

But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.

---

And that is when you change the game.

---

Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?

---

Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.

I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.

Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.

Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"

No.

As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.

---

I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.

Politics is controlling the other.

I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.

---

One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.

We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.

Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.

---

*shrugs*

My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.

Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.

Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?

““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””

— H.L. Mencken

---

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.

This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.

I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.

Who is the "right" to deny me those things?

---

I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."

I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.

I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.

I want less government than absolutely necessary.

---

I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.

You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.

---

“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”

Watergate.

Ford's pardoning of Nixon.

Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.

Iran-Contra.

Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.

The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.

I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.

I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.

---

First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.

Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.

When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.

---

I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.

As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?

---

Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.

Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.

Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.

---

You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.

As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.

Or the premise is invalid.

---

That is not true.

There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.

For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.

As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.

---

“There has to be rationality.”

Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.

Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.

Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.

---

I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.

I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.

Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.

And he was a Democrat.

---

You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.

I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.

I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.

“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”

“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”

You can't depend on government to do it for you.

---

Before Trump, who was doing it?

After Trump, who will continue doing it?

And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.

All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.

You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.

Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.

Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.

A man is measured in the lives he touched.

---

BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.

---

Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.

My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."

I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.

I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.

Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.

---

As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.

We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.

Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.

Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.

And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.

As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ game ∙ ideology ∙ break the rules ∙ Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country ∙ objective ∙ subjective ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ Richard Nixon ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ War on Drugs ∙ narco-state ∙ mandatory minimum sentences ∙ Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ∙ 1208 program ∙ militarize police ∙ 1033 program ∙ your guys ∙ other guy ∙ label ∙ institutions ∙ Gerald Ford ∙ CIA ∙ George H. W. Bush ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ Iran-Contra ∙ Inslaw ∙ PROMIS ∙ Danny Casolaro ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ public schools ∙ universities ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump ∙ good ∙ evil

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Seater ∙ public schools ∙ charter school ∙ Philadelphia ∙ Boys' Latin ∙ David Hardy ∙ taxes

Tags: Cherokee ∙ New Echota treaty ∙ 1835 ∙ House of Representatives ∙ Amerindian ∙ delegate ∙ tribe ∙ protectorate ∙ Wild Hunt

A Very Fast, Very Safe, Very SLIMM Nuclear Reactor

““One of the latest to emerge is the SLIMM – the Scalable LIquid Metal–cooled small Modular reactor. This is a fast reactor that uses liquid sodium (Na) to cool and exchange heat, and that generates 10 to 100 MW for many years, even decades, without refueling, depending on what power level is desired. It’s very smaller version, the VSLIMM, generates 1 to 10 MW.

Its designers, Drs. Mohamed S. El-Genk, Luis Palomino and Timothy Schriener from the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Space and Nuclear Power Studies in Albuquerque, describe it thus:

"Fully passive operation with no single point failure, cooled by natural circulation of sodium during operation and after shutdown, high negative temperature reactivity feedback and redundant control and safety shutdown, walk-away safe, long life without refueling, factory fabricated, assembled and sealed, shipped to the construction site by rail, truck, or barge, installed below ground to avoid direct impact by missiles or aircraft, and mounted on seismic oscillation bearings to resist earthquakes.”

The reactor has redundant and passive decay heat removal by heat pipes and natural circulation of ambient air.

In other words, it can’t melt down, is cheap to construct and only needs ordinary outside air to cool off if it does shut down quickly for any reason. With Na’s very low vapor pressure, the reactor operates below atmospheric pressure so there is no pressure vessel to worry about.””
     — James Conca

Tags: clipping ∙ thorium ∙ nuclear power ∙ reactor ∙ James Conca ∙ Mohamed S. El-Genk ∙ Luis Palomino ∙ Timothy Schriener ∙ University of New Mexico ∙ Institute for Space and Nuclear Power Studies

““I have no desire to make windows into men's souls.””

— Elizabeth I

Tags: Elizabeth I ∙ privacy ∙ souls

““Chairman Xi went a bridge too far in trying to seize control of Hong Kong. He is not dealing with barefoot villagers in the rice provinces. Hong Kong is a cleaner version of New York City. He is the emperor who controls everything except the city that keeps his empire afloat.””

— Don Surber, Xi blinks in Hong Kong

Tags: Don Surber ∙ Hong Kong ∙ China ∙ Chairman Xi ∙ New York

If the current "red flag law" proposals are any indication, almost all the criteria will certainly be political.

Tags: uniform rule of law ∙ exceptions ∙ exemptions

““A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. Let no man be kept from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot box because of her sex.””

— Frederick Douglass, speech on November 15, 1867

Tags: Frederick Douglass ∙ ballot box ∙ cartridge box ∙ jury box

“You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt”

Tags: “Tennessee” Ernie Ford ∙ Merle Travis ∙ guest content ∙ video ∙ music

❝❝A terrifyingly surprising number of police officers also have "incidents of domestic abuse in their background." Not most to be sure, but the field seems to draw some really f…ed up people. Worse, police are legally shielded from the consequences of their own actions.

If the current "red flag law" proposals are any indication, almost all the criteria will certainly be political. Considering that most people including psychiatrists and psychologists are incapable of judging competence, motives, or morality without some intense analysis, that is asking for trouble.

Here's what you do not want to acknowledge. Most people are not criminal. Most gun owners don't casually shoot other people or property. And there is not a single background check that will prevent every possible mass shooter.

Now I could go on and on. I could point out that American gun laws originated to keep guns out of the hands of "blacks". I could list the puppycide incidents. I could point out the militarization of police, especially in the "War on Drugs." All of this overlooks one very simple thing. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders did not trust government.

All your suggestions, all your proposals, everything you've said will arm more government agents while making the populace unarmed. Tell me, do you want Trump's government heavily armed while you are not?❞❞

Tags: Second Amendment ∙ red flag law ∙ background checks ∙ War on Drugs ∙ government

❝❝If government is not a net benefit, then the question “What can government do?” changes to “How do we limit costs?”❞❞

— NeoWayland, liberty question

Tags: maxims ∙ economics ∙ government ∙ costs ∙ libertarian

Biochar: A better start to rain forest restoration

““An indigenous farming technique that’s been around for thousands of years provides the basis for restoring rain forests stripped clear of trees by gold mining and other threats.

A carbon-based soil amendment called biochar is a cheap and effective way to support tree seedling survival during reforestation efforts in the Amazon rain forest, according to new research from Wake Forest University’s Center for Amazonian Scientific Innovation (CINCIA).

Restoring and recovering rain forests has become increasingly important for combatting climate change, since these wide swaths of trees can absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year. The problem is particularly acute in areas mined for alluvial gold deposits, which devastate not only rain forest trees but also soils. High costs can be a huge barrier to replanting, fertilizing and nurturing trees to replace those lost in the rain forest.

The scientists found that using biochar combined with fertilizer significantly improved height and diameter growth of tree seedlings while also increasing the number of leaves the seedlings developed. The experiment, based in a Peruvian Amazon region called Madre de Dios, the heart of illegal gold mining trade in that country, used two tropical tree species: the fast-growing Guazuma crinita and Terminalia amazonia, a late successional tree often used as timber.””
     — Alicia Roberts

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Alicia Roberts ∙ Alicia Roberts ∙ biochar ∙ ecology ∙ CINCIA ∙ rain forest ∙ Amazon ∙ Wake Forest University ∙ cross posted ∙ Technopagan Yearnings

If we're going to have a conversation, these facts must be a part of that.

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Reason Online ∙ Ronald Bailey ∙ GDP ∙ Journal of Economic Growth ∙ regulations ∙ income ∙ John Dawson ∙ Appalachian State University ∙ John Seater ∙ North Carolina State ∙ Federal government

““Organized Religion and Organized Crime are two sides to the same coin. They both want to control you and they do it through fear. Organized crime threatens you with death of yourself and your loved ones; organized religion threatens you with eternal damnation.””

— Kalinysta

Tags: cross posted ∙ Kalinysta ∙ Technopagan Yearnings ∙ organized religion ∙ organized crime ∙ fear

If we're going to have a conversation, these facts must be a part of that.

Tags: guns ∙ gun control ∙ laws ∙ violence ∙ mass shootings ∙ gun laws

“Who Inflicts the Most Gun Violence in America?”

Tags: clipping ∙ John W. Whitehead ∙ gun control ∙ guns ∙ government ∙ Ferguson ∙ Missouri ∙ police ∙ America

““There are four ways in which you can spend money.  You can spend your own money on yourself.  When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.  Then you can spend your own money on somebody else.  For example, I buy a birthday present for someone.  Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.  Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself.  And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!  Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.  And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.  And that’s government.  And that’s close to 40% of our national income.””

— Milton Friedman

Tags: Milton Friedman ∙ money

The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most Nations of Europe

““A groundbreaking study by Just Facts has discovered that after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and Food Stamps—the poorest 20% of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the U.S. “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest.

Notably, this study was reviewed by Dr. Henrique Schneider, professor of economics at Nordakademie University in Germany and the chief economist of the Swiss Federation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. After examining the source data and Just Facts’ methodology, he concluded: “This study is sound and conforms with academic standards. I personally think it provides valuable insight into poverty measures and adds considerably to this field of research.”””
     — James D. Agresti

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ James D. Agresti ∙ poor ∙ wealth ∙ wealth inequality ∙ America

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ heterosexuality ∙ straight

❝❝Some works speak to the ages, and some whimper to the egos.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ works ∙ ages ∙ whimper ∙ egos

Why are taxpayer dollars collected by force being spent on a playground? Any playground?

Tags: maxims ∙ culture ∙ syncretic ∙ works

❝❝Once the law starts recognizing and enforcing differences, of course the rich and powerful will find ways to exploit and control the law. Of course politicos and technocrats will sell out and protect "their" companies from competition and "threats."

When the law complicates commerce, the law will be abused. This is not the fault of commerce or capitalism. This is the fault of influence peddling and politics. The only solutions are to have law control more and more, or to get law out of the way. The first way benefits established companies and government.

The second way is the only practical way to restore freedom and loosen cash flow.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from The 1619 Project: Scholarship Or Race Hustling?

Tags: commerce ∙ capitalism

The job of social media is to provide access while people make up their own minds.

Tags: Claire Quinn ∙ do no harm ∙ take no shit ∙ Golden Gloves

Why are taxpayer dollars collected by force being spent on a playground? Any playground?

Tags: religious freedom ∙ regulation ∙ Trinity Lutheran ∙ Christian ∙ tax deduction ∙ taxes ∙ government ∙ private sector

“President Trump both cut and increased regulation.”

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ Donald Trump ∙ regulation

❝❝A public forum is mostly open to anyone who would speak and write, but the owners and operators of the forum can't be held responsible for what others write and say.

A publisher selects content and is responsible for what is written and said.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to private entities or individuals.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a decent compromise. If I am a publisher or broadcaster or webmaster, I'm under no obligation to provide a place for your thoughts and opinions. My choice controls the content. But that makes me responsible for the content.

If I don't provide the content, then I don't have liability.

The more moderation I provide, the more liability.

The job of social media is to provide access while people make up their own minds.❞❞

— Adapted from public forum vs. publisher in NeoWayland's lexicon

Tags: public forum ∙ publisher ∙ Section 230 ∙ Communications Decency Act ∙ First Amendment ∙ social media ∙ liability ∙ moderation

Are you trying to make me irritated with you?

You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants.

Tags: YouTube ∙ PragerU ∙ guest content ∙ video ∙ freedom ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ lawsuit ∙ Alphabet ∙ Google ∙ Eric George ∙ public forum ∙ publisher ∙ First Amendment ∙ social media

Tags: patriotism ∙ NAB ∙ mj1956 ∙ Tomorrow Media ∙ Jim Kirk ∙ Voice of Freedom ∙ lyrics ∙ America ∙ USA ∙ Billboard Hot 100 ∙ 1980 ∙ guest content

Tags: Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country

❝❝Mrs. Bookworm,

Are you trying to make me irritated with you?

You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants. This is what, the ninth or tenth? It's blood libel. You wouldn't stand for it if the targets were Jewish or Christian. I don't see why I should "turn the other cheek" when you target pagans.

Nature worship as such is not the problem. Any more than the KKK (a nominally Christian organization) is. Intolerance is the problem. Demanding that others follow the rules of your faith is the problem. Yes, Nature is red of tooth and claw. So are humans when untempered by civilization. And no, I do not mean civilization is Christianity. I regularly tell people that Christians (and the other two Big Monotheisms) are nicer people when they aren't the only game around. Yes, Christianity says some pretty nice things in that book. But it only plays by it's own rules when there is competition keeping it honest.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. It's in the words and actions of the individual. We're measured in the lives we touch.

You want to go after someone for intolerance, be my guest. You want to go after someone for monoculture and echo chambers, go for it. You want to go after someone for Nature worship, then you'll have to start with me. And I will turn it back on you with a vengeance. Not nicely, like I usually do with these discussions. Because you would do the same if it were your faith that was attacked. And so would everyone else here.❞❞

Tags: Bookworm ∙ anti-pagan ∙ blood libel ∙ Christian ∙ Christians ∙ civilization ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ label ∙ monoculture ∙ echo chambers ∙ Nature

““The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.””

— Winston Churchill

Tags: Winston Churchill ∙ vice ∙ capitalism ∙ virtue ∙ socialism

“Soph, also known as LtCorbis, is a 14 year old girl whose YouTube videos, dealing with issues like LGBT and gay pride, Islam, and pedophilia, have drawn the ire and leftist Buzzfeed reporters everywhere. Recently banned from YouTube but still active on BitChute, we explore her videos, and whether minors like her have simply been indoctrinated, and should be free to post content they may regret later on.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Soph ∙ LtCorbis ∙ YouTube ∙ LGBT ∙ gay pride ∙ Islam ∙ pedophilia ∙ Buzzfeed ∙ minors

❝❝Those using tragedy for political benefit or opportunity, especially murder or a violent crime.❞❞

— political ghouls from NeoWayland's lexicon

Tags: lexicon ∙ ghouls

❝❝It's not that capitalism produces no losers, it's that the free market produces fewer losers by a couple of orders of magnitude.

Notice that I am distinguishing between capitalism and the free market.

Again, I'm talking about a "bottom-up" self-organizing exchange versus a "top-down" system imposed by force. In a free market, the way to get ahead is providing what others want. In any other system, it's about controlling the system.

ANY artificial controls will be exploited by the most powerful at the expense of the weaker. Resources are diverted into controlling the rules rather than producing value.

"Moral obligations" will be used to shut competition out of the marketplace in the name of compassion, and it will be backed by government force, diverting still more resources away from the market and into government and control.

The free market has only one real justification, it has produced more wealth and more freedom for more people than anything else we have tried. The key is individual choice, not controlling the system.

In a free market, competition keeps us honest and choice is the only control that works.

---

The two most important phrases in human history:

“Let me help.”

“I can do better than that!”

---

It's not the tools, it's the results.

The free market is an example of people choosing for themselves. Government is controlling people by force.

And yes, the world is changing. It's embracing choice. That doesn't mean that the politicos and technocrats will give up power willingly. But they can't control everything that happens. Who could have foreseen the world wide web, Snicker's bars, or topless maid services? What government agency would have tolerated those things? What Congress critter would have sponsored legislation creating flash mobs, radar detectors, or fantasy football?

I want more freedom for more people today. I want more of the same tomorrow. Choice is the best way to get freedom. That's it, plain and simple. That's my objective.

---

See, you're still talking politics. "Arrange." "Cap." That's about controlling others, implying that government force will be involved sooner or later.

Why should their choice control my action? Why should my choice control your action? Why should your choice control their action?

It's not about creating the framework or tweaking the system. They've got something I want, so I have to find something they want. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, and no third party taking a cut or dictating rules.

---

Freedom and wealth. The Apaches could not produce steel knives, antiseptics, or a horseshoe. In one sense they were free, but they didn't have wealth. What freedom and wealth they had was taken at the expense of others.

Freedom taken at the expense of someone else is privilege and is generally recognized as a Bad Thing. Perhaps the keystone to Western Civilization is the Ethic of Reciprocity. This is what makes freedom more than a privilege grab. It also can't be imposed by another.

I'm proposing that the free market makes freedom and wealth possible while making things mostly better today than they were yesterday. So we have steel tools, paracord, duck tape, battery drills, and lights at the flick of a switch. These and seven million and thirteen other things weren't even a possibility with a hunter/gatherer culture.

Freedom is only one part of the payoff.

---

Nice things result in greater freedom.

I grow stuff in my garden, but that is not my source of food. I can go to the grocery store and find a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than I could ever hope to grow myself. My choices are increased by the store, and it couldn't happen without the free market.

A few years back I was looking at an aquaponics set-up. Beyond the design and construction, it would have taken about twenty hours a week and between two and three hundred dollars more per month. And that is if everything went right and I never left town.

Is it necessary that I use the supermarket? No, but it's a better use of my time and resources than if I tried to do it on my own. It lets me use the labor and skills of others at a minimal cost to myself.❞❞

Tags: losers ∙ capitalism ∙ bottom up ∙ self-organizing ∙ exchange ∙ top down ∙ force ∙ system ∙ resources ∙ moral obligations ∙ competition ∙ compassion ∙ wealth ∙ let me help ∙ I can do better than that

❝❝Neo-paganism has nothing to do with devaluing human life. The term neo-pagan is a recent invention and has nothing to do with morality.

Honestly, Mrs. Bookworm, have you ever known me to devalue human life? Have you ever seen me treat anyone disrespectfully unless they disrespected me or someone else first? Yet I am a neopagan under the scholarly definition. I greet the sunrise. I dance naked under the full Moon. I've written and spoken against war, blood sacrifice, and coercion.

The fact is there is no monolithic morality among neopagans. Even most neopagans can't agree what the term means except in the broadest terms.

Neopagan and pagan are not slur words. I'd be happy to answer any general questions I can, or find you someone who can if I can't. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, I'd appreciate it if I could expect the same.

---

That may be true. But using pagan or neopagan as a way to describe low morality is unacceptable. Mrs. Bookworm and others here would not accept a slur like this against Jews or Christians.

I'm not asking anyone to participate. I'm just asking for the same respect that they themselves expect.

---

For what it is worth, I'd say that modern pagans are less tolerant of others who insist that their faith/belief system/rule set must dominate.

Sometimes the trick is convincing them that the nasty ole conservative Christians aren't always or even usually the enemy.

---

There we get into "no True Scottsman."

Just as an example, I can promise you that the first century Christian was a considerably different creature than his sixth century counterpart. Just as the eighteenth century version was very different. And how the early twentieth century version differed from the late twentieth, or even the twenty-first century incarnation. And that doesn't even allow for all the various sects.

The way I see it, faith is between you and the Divine. No one else.

❝I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.❞

By most modern standards, I'm pagan. Certainly in the sense that I look for Divine manifestation outside of an official Book. Some of my stuff came by way of the new age fluffiness, sure. Some of it also came from gnosticism and the silence of a desert dawn. Does that make it less valid for me than yours is for you?

I'm not something less. I'm something else.

---

But is it better than being a gun toting redneck?

See, people today like to forget, but pagans invented civilization. And trade. And philosophy.

The Visigoths weren't intent on destroying civilization as much as they were controlling it.

---

The problem with the Visigoths wasn't that they were pagan. The problem is that they wanted to control others. We have the same kind of people today, and they are just as destructive. The issue isn't paganism, it's politics. Just as it is for certain Christians today.

BTW, my mother was born in Louisiana, my maternal grandfather was born in Tennessee, and my stepdad's family is from Arkansas. I'd put my redneck bona-fides up against any one else's.

---

For those interested in conspiracy theory, the Merovingian dynasty was the "Holy Grail" proposed by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. That is, the bloodline supposedly descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. If this sounds familiar, Dan Brown lifted it for The Da Vinci Code. This may be the justification of the divine right of the European royals, although there is a (disputed) theory about a sacred king being a sacrifice.

This gets murky real fast, especially since many non-Western royals also trace their descent from gods.

Anyway, I've confuzzled things enough for now.

---

Not to mention that it wasn't unusual for the same sacred sites to be reused again and again and again, which raises the question of who or what was originally worshipped. And so on, and so forth…

Getting back to your point though, yes the Visigoths were pretty civilized. And yes they were pagan only in the sense that they weren't part of the Officially Approved variant faith at the time.

Traditionally, before someone goes after another faith, they always stomp out their own heresies. It's about the politics and who gets to call the shots, not about the purity of faith.

And of course that never happens in pagan faiths.

*ahem*

I might have set off the exaggeration alarm there.❞❞

— comments from No. 4 Bookworm Room Podcast: The Second Amendment, Morality, and Kindness

Tags: cross posted ∙ Bookworm ∙ pagan ∙ neopagans ∙ slur words

❝❝Do you really want to live in a country where the only thing between you and tyranny is the whim of the chief executive?❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ tyranny ∙ chief executive

❝❝Again, the "problem" isn't who ever is occupying the office. The problem is that we give government power to abuse and then act surprised when the alphabet agencies take it "too far."❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ power ∙ alphabet agencies

❝❝You're perfectly capable of making your own choices.

The real question is why politicos don't want you doing that.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ choice ∙ politicos

““If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it.””

— Ward Connerly

Tags: Ward Connerly ∙ Left ∙ race ∙ default position

““Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change. The power he finds in his victimization may lead him to collective action against society, but it also encourages passivity within the sphere of his personal life.””

— Shelby Steele

Tags: Shelby Steele ∙ social victim ∙ oppressed ∙ changes in society ∙ initiative ∙ agent of change ∙ victimization ∙ passivity

““It’s often said that the Democrats fight 'for the little guy.' That’s true: liberals fight to make sure the little guy stays little! Think about it. What if all the little guys were to prosper and become big guys? Then what? Who would liberals pretend to fight for? If the bamboozlers fight for anything, it’s to ensure that the little guy stays angry at those nasty conservatives who are holding him down.””

— Angela McGlowan

Tags: Angela McGlowan

❝❝There is an assumption underlying American politics and to a certain extent our discussions here. In order for you to win, in order for you to benefit, someone else if not everyone else must lose. Some call it dualism, some call it either/or, and some call it IS or IS NOT. It's The Law of the Excluded Middle (more or less) and it's usually a false premise.

Something doesn't have to be black OR white. Sometimes it can be sour. Or fuzzy. Or octagonal. By accepting two and only two qualifying conditions, you eliminate all other possibilities, even if those other possibilities may serve your needs better.

For example, Sarah Waggoner is very much caught up in dualism. Any criticism of Democrats means she must attack Trump or Republicans in general. The idea that someone can be critical of Democrats without being a Republican is outside her expectations and almost outside her world view.

Meanwhile, from my perspective the problem isn't Democrats or Republicans. Accepting either premise ignores the obvious (to me), that too much government is the core problem. As long as the discussion is about either Party Red or Party Blue, we don't talk about an ever expanding technocracy that consumes more and more even as it restricts freedom. You can't talk about the dangers of government until you stop talking about the misdeeds of whichever party. Dealing only with Republicans or Democrats means you never look too closely at the system.

By design

---

Still, your first reaction to any criticism of Democrats is to attack Trump or Republicans.

You've never seen me "discuss" things like religion, sex, or crony capitalism with Republicans. Not to mention the occasional person who insists that their morality must displace all other choices.

My default is KYFHO. Keep Your F…ing Hands Off!

The fact is (and one of your major issues) that I assume that most people are perfectly capable of making their own choices. I don't think that government should be involved in most things. I don't think that government is first, best, and last solution. I do not trust in the wisdom of government.

Outside of sex and top-down morality, yes, that matches the mainstream "Republican" position. More accurately, the mainstream "Republican" position matches some of the classic liberal position. And yes, there is a vast difference between modern liberals and classic liberals. As I've said, my opinions on religion, sex and top-down morality (and what is dooming our culture) put me outside the Republican mainstream and squarely in with what might be called Democrat positions. Again, more accurately the Democrat positions match some of classic liberal position positions. And since classic liberals had those positions first, well, the Republicans and Democrats stole from their betters.

I could give you a hundred and thirteen things that Trump has done wrong. But I don't see Trump as significantly worse (or better) than his predecessors. At the end of the day (or term), we still have an ever expanding government that is destroying liberty. I don't think we should have a country whose liberty depends on the whims of those "in charge" this week.

Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats both want to expand government, only with their people in charge. The goal is not the government. The goal is not the system. The goal is liberty. Everything else is extra.❞❞

Tags: philosophy ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ dualism ∙ Donald Trump ∙ goverment ∙ system

❝❝Let's fix problems caused by government with… more government!❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ problems

““Kids should be allowed to just be kids.””

— Lauren Chen

Tags: Lauren Chen ∙ kids

Let's start with the baseline.

Earth is approximately four and a half billion years old. The approximate span of human history is about ten thousand years. Recorded history is only about six thousand years or so.

That makes human history .0002% or so of the life of the planet.

Let's be generous and say that humans have been producing significant carbon emissions for about three hundred years. That's about three percent of human history and an amazingly minute speck of planetary history.

So no more "ten year deadlines," especially since the deadline is always ten years out.

Before we start examining what humans are pumping into the atmosphere, we need to measure what is happening to our temperature. It turns out that we can see that temperatures changes on Mars match some of the temperature changes on Earth. That means that Mars and Earth have to share the same modifier in at least some instances. The obvious candidate is the Sun.

The Earth's climate has shifted radically before, even before there were humans. We don't entirely understand what caused those shifts, which means we can't eliminate those reasons from our projections.

While increased carbon dioxide has been linked to temperature increases, we don't know if the temperature increases caused the carbon dioxide or if the carbon dioxide cause the temperature change. We do know that the carbon dioxide cascade effect used in some climate models has never been observed or proven in a laboratory. There is no "magic threshold" between acceptable carbon dioxide and unacceptable carbon dioxide. Based on what has been observed, if there is a causal relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature increase, it is probably linear and not logarithmic.

We do know that in the past there has been higher carbon dioxide without any long term effects except increased plant growth.

We don't know what causes climate change.

This is not an "all or nothing" situation. We can care for the World without placing control in the hands of politics and technocrats. We can reduce our waste. We can use water wisely. We can build to work with the Earth and climate instead of imposing our control.

It's our choice.

From what we've seen, we dare not trust government to care for the planet.

Tags: carbon cycle ∙ carbon dioxide ∙ climate change ∙ Earth ∙ Mars ∙ Sun ∙ waste ∙ water

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ woke ∙ kids ∙ Deport Racism ∙ let kids be kids

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ PragerU ∙ green new deal ∙ Alex Epstein ∙ abundance ∙ energy ∙ clean planet

““Our enemies are never as evil as we think they are and maybe we are never quite as good.””

— Justice League Unlimited

Tags: evil ∙ good ∙ enemy

❝❝The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ choice ∙ control

❝❝Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.❞❞

Tags: economics ∙ value ∙ maxims ∙ choice ∙ greater good

❝❝Let's break the myth that government is the first, best, and last solution.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ myth ∙ government ∙ first best last ∙ solution

❝❝"Controlling" an economy is like putting plumbing in a swamp. You have to take the existing water away before you can bring water back. The plumbing always leaks and bursts because there is nothing stable to work with.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ economics

It always bothers people when I answer the implied question and not what they actually said.

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ corruption

Economics describes the flow of value.

Tags: maxims ∙ respect ∙ individual ∙ label

It's not about abuse of power. It's not about moral failings.

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Computing Forever ∙ Story

I'm tired of being lectured to.

Tags: choice & consequence ∙ responsibility ∙ control of the system ∙ government ∙ winners or losers

❝❝Beer, cheese, and bread.

These things were discovered hundreds, perhaps thousands of years ago. We don't know exactly when. What we do know is that chemistry and science in general originated because someone wanted to make beer, cheese, and bread better.

Money, measurement and accounting in general started because someone tried to figure out how many goats their grain harvest was worth.

That doesn't even count fundamentals like fire or the wheel which are still basics of our science and technology today.

Science and technology use what works. When we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology.

And yes, economics in it's pure form is a science. The problem comes when we try to use economics to do things that it can't do well. Most of this is directly traceable to government interference in the exchange.

Economics describes the flow of value. We know how value moves as long as it isn't diverted. Rather than top-down "managing the system" and diverting (and diminishing value), I'd rather see new ideas in products and services. I'd rather see incremental improvements in technology than a clumsy effort to shift money by government edict. I'd rather see lower prices than tariffs protecting the "balance of payments."

---

No, the correct phrase is that when we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology. Sometimes it's an improvement, sometimes it is a dead end. Modify is appropriate, not improvement.

Your point is wrong. The poor are getting richer, in cash, opportunities, and in available goods (at a lower cost). Cell phones are dirt cheap. Grocery stores have a better selection and sell for lower relative prices.

There is a disparity between the rate of wealth growth of the rich and poor, but the majority of people are better off. But since that doesn't cost the poor, that's hardly a problem.

Are there problems with unemployment and low paying jobs? Yes, but it's not government's job to fix that. We know that when government tries to set prices or wages, things get worse.

You want specifics, then I will give you specifics. Cut taxes so that the combined (Federal, state, local) tax on anything is no more than ten percent. Do away with the income tax and it's reporting requirements. Prevent government from spending more than it takes in, possibly by punishing the legislators. I can give you hundreds more, but all of it is unimportant until taxes get cut way back AND government spends within it's means and no more.

If I say things that are correct and they don't fit your "mental image of the world," maybe that image isn't all that clear.

---

For American history, I usually work from about 1750 CE on. For Western civilization in general, I usually work from the age of Charlemagne or the Roman republic

Now, what you are talking about is the 20th Century. That just happens to be the century of American central banking, command economy, war as an industry, active intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, massive corporations mostly unbound by local laws, and the birth of "globalism." I put "globalism" in quotes because our "elites" don't mean opening up the world to trade and cultural exchange, they mean control. Specifically deciding what is and is not allowed under what circumstances.

I group these things together because they are closely and intimately related. These are also things that you are not supposed to pay attention to, indeed most of the media constantly tries to distract people from these things. It's just taken for granted that government is supposed to handle those things and we mere citizens aren't supposed to worry.

We're conditioned from birth to accept that government is the first, last, and best solution.

Plot the events and trend lines for yourself. Increase any of these six items and the impact falls mostly on the middle class and then the poor. These changes don't affect the rich as much as those trying to become rich. Changing your financial circumstances becomes harder. Indeed, a society that puts those six factors first "locks out changes," it resists any disruption from within the system. Usually the only change that can happen starts externally. For the elites, this is not a flaw, this is deliberate design.

So when I say that government is not your friend and when the solution to almost all widespread economic problems is to get government out of the picture, it's because I know what it has done.

The truly scary part is "helping the little guy" relies on more government intervention and control. Even though that is what hurt the them to begin with. Let's fix government… with more government!

The problem for the elites is that the economy can't be controlled, not even mostly. Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.

Build a system insulated from the free market that "controls" value and it will always serve the elites at the expense of everyone else. Manipulate the system, tinker with it, and the elites always come out ahead.

---

“When has an economist ever been right about anything?!”

Hernando de Soto. The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism. Almost any of the Chicago school of economics. But the politicos don't like a free market approach because it reduces their power and their ability to pick "winners" and "losers" in a national economy. Of course when things go wrong, that doesn't stop the politicos and pundits from blaming economics in general and the Chicago school specifically. Even if the politicos and technocrats did the exact opposite of what Chicago school of economics experts told them they needed to do.

---

Meteorology measures and predicts the weather within limits. No one expects meteorology to control the weather. Even in a massive internal environment like a skyscraper, no one uses the tools and techniques to of meteorology to control the "weather" except in the most basic ways. Meteorology is about understanding the weather, not controlling it.

Any meteorologist who told you that he could control the weather is either a fool or a con man.

Likewise, any meteorologist who claimed he could predict the wind by measuring the humidity isn't using the right tools.

---

The Other Path tells that story. de Soto was part of the international economics team brought in to advise to Chilean government how to grow their economy and how to deal with The Shining Path's promises. It's one of the best examples of practical economics and the Chicago school specifically.

---

A word of advice. Never argue practical economics with a small "L" libertarian.

---

A good economist isn't going to promise he can control the flow of value. What he can do is tell you that diverting value reduces value.

Value isn't something that can be generated by political dictate. You have to provide something that people want. Free market competition means that over time, goods and services become better, cheaper, and more widely distributed, even as the overall value flow increases. It's all based on choice without coercion. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults.

When you get people who don't like the choices others make and see the coercive power of government as a way to change or stop those choices, that's when things get complicated. We effectively outlaw cannabis and cocaine, but nicotine and alcohol are only regulated. Sex is okay in marriage, but not as a commercial transaction. You can make a statue of a bare breasted Liberty leading the charge, but most American beaches require covered breasts.

The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.❞❞

Tags: economics ∙ beer ∙ cheese ∙ bread ∙ chemistry ∙ science ∙ money ∙ measurement ∙ accounting ∙ wheel ∙ fire ∙ harvest ∙ trade ∙ technology ∙ value ∙ American history ∙ Western Civilization ∙ 20th Century ∙ central banking ∙ command economy ∙ war industry ∙ foreign policy ∙ corporations ∙ globalism ∙ media ∙ goverment ∙ Hernando de Soto ∙ Chicago school of economics ∙ Chile ∙ libertarian ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults

The issue is not that Trump is a terrible president who abuses his power and the trust people have in him.

The people making the biggest noises about the abuse of government power looked the other way when Obamacare was passed. Or when Obama went after journalists. Or when the deep state went after Trump even before he was elected.

It's not about abuse of power. It's not about moral failings.

It's that a Republican is in office.

Tyranny is okay if it's YOUR GUY calling the shots. Your justification changes, but the issue is that someone else is running things. Freedom doesn't matter if it's the right people for the Greater Good.

GFY.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Republican ∙ abuse of power ∙ morality ∙ tyranny ∙ GFY

I'm tired of being lectured to. So here's my challenge.

I pick any thirteen cities in the United States. You pick any month in one caledar year. You predict the exact temperature of each and every day from five separate locations within the city. But each location must be used only once, and can be no closer than seven blocks from any other location. That means somewhere between 140 and 155 temperature sites per city. Any given day is going to have 65 separate temperature readings for the country.

We're not even getting into the impact of climate change here. We're just seeing if human knowledge of climate is accurate enough to predict actual temperature. Not a range, but an actual temperature. Let's simplify and say that if any three readings on a given day match, that is the "official" reading for that city.

Because if you can't do that, and if the readings in a city vary, and if the readings across a country vary, there is no way you can say that an increased "average" temperature is the result of human activity. Especially if your predictions are in hundredths of a degree.

More importantly, change in one location doesn't mean change in another location.

This is a really reduced model. Let's expand a bit and use every month and every city. Same restrictions. Each location must be used only once per month, and can be no closer than seven blocks from any other location.

We're not adjusting for "climate change" yet, we're just trying to see how accurate the baseline is. Until you can show you can predict existing behavior, you can't model what is actually happening. And if you can't model the actual, there is no way you can model the theoretical.

Tags: environment ∙ climate change crisis

““By the democratic principles we espouse, government cannot have a right that citizens do not grant it. There are certain things that a person has no right to do. A person has no right to murder or rape another. Therefore, people cannot grant government authority to murder and rape. Similarly, no person has the right to forcibly take the property of one person in order to give it to another. Therefore, people cannot grant government authority to do the same thing. If I forcibly took property from one person, for any reason, most people would condemn it as theft, an immoral act. Theft or any other immoral act does not become moral because it is done by government acting on behalf of a consensus or majority vote just as murder or rape does not become a moral act simply because of a consensus or majority vote.””

— Walter E. Williams

Tags: Walter E. Williams ∙ government ∙ authority ∙ citizens ∙ murder ∙ rape ∙ theft ∙ consensus

““Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering, and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.””

— Walter E. Williams

Tags: Walter E. Williams ∙ capitalism ∙ serving ∙ wealth ∙ looting ∙ plundering ∙ enslaving

““One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present.””

— Golda Meir

Tags: Golda Meir ∙ past ∙ present ∙ cross posted

““You have “issues” with the Gadsden Flag? Go fuck yourself.

You have “issues” with the Betsy Ross flag? Go fuck yourself.

You have “issues” with my “Come and Take It” shirt? Go fuck yourself.

I could go on. But you get the idea.

Perhaps you consider this intemperate and confrontational. I agree! It is intemperate and confrontational by intent. Just like the Gadsden Flag.””

— Craig Pirrong, Have “Issues” With the Gadsden Flag?: GFY

Tags: Craig Pirrong ∙ Gadsden Flag ∙ Betsy Ross flag ∙ Come and Take It ∙ GFY

“"It's obvious you idiot" doesn't cut it.”

Tags: maxims ∙ libertarian ∙ American ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ government ∙ individual

❝❝A conservative tends to value economic freedom over personal freedom. Usually this means removing government obstacles to business while advocating a common moral belief system to join people together, even if someone has to sacrifice in the name of that system. In it's more extreme forms, that can mean dictating the personal behavior (and occasionally beliefs) of individuals through government actions. The bottom line and results take precedence over feelings.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Pagan•Vigil FAQ

Tags: maxims ∙ conservative ∙ government ∙ economic freedom ∙ common good

❝❝A modern liberal can range from what used to be called a "progressive" to socialist. Roughly speaking, a modern liberal is all for personal freedom but feels that economic freedom and opportunity should be controlled by government action so that everyone "benefits equally" in the name of "social justice." In it's more extreme forms, it can mean that good intentions and lofty goals are judged over results.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Pagan•Vigil FAQ

Tags: maxims ∙ modern liberal ∙ progressive ∙ socialist ∙ personal freedom ∙ economic freedom ∙ government ∙ equality ∙ social justice

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Styxhexenhammer666 ∙ liberal ∙ Donald Trump ∙ racist

❝❝The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek.

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell.

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt.

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization by Charles Adams.

The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.❞❞

Tags: Friedrich Hayek ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ Henry Hazlitt ∙ Charles Adams ∙ Marvin Olasky

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ PragerU ∙ Nancy Rommelmann ∙ #MeToo ∙ #MeNeither

““Feminists never notice crimes like this, because “violence against women” doesn’t matter when it’s committed by Third World men.””

— Robert Stacy McCain, Death by Tourism

Tags: Robert Stacy McCain ∙ feminist ∙ crime ∙ violence ∙ women ∙ Third World ∙ men

Leia turned the whole damsel in distress thing on it's head.

Tags: Martin Luther King ∙ Character ∙ skin color

Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief of Staff: Green New Deal About Changing Economy

““Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff for New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.), said that the Green New Deal was not about the climate, but rather about tearing down the economy and building a new one, according to a report from The Washington Post.

"The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," Chakrabarti said, according to the Post. "Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

Chakrabarti made the comments during a meeting with Sam Ricketts, the climate director for presidential candidate Jay Inslee.””
     — Graham Piro

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Graham Piro ∙ Mark Mills ∙ green new deal ∙ Nature ∙ Saikat Chakrabarti ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Sam Ricketts ∙ Jay Inslee ∙ economy ∙ climate change

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Manhattan Institute ∙ solar power ∙ renewable ∙ nuclear power ∙ Mark Mills ∙ green new deal ∙ Nature

❝❝Just going to point this out. Princess Leia was a badass.

When we first see her, her ship has been captured by the much larger star destroyer. What does she do? She hides the secret plans where nobody will find them and records a message. After that she grabs a blaster and holds off stormtroopers. When she's finally captured, she faces down Tarkin and Vader telling them both off and giving a "the reason you suck" speech. When Luke and Han break her out of her cell, she grabs a gun and breaks all of them out of the detention level.

All while never using her sexuality to get what she wants or letting anyone forget she is a woman.

Leia turned the whole damsel in distress thing on it's head. And arguably has the least character development of any of the "face" characters in the first trilogy.

But she's the one who impacts the heroes. The formula isn't damsel in distress. It's catalyst for change.

Going back to Casablanca, Ilsa wouldn't be Ilsa if she didn't have to choose between two men she loved. Yes, part of it was the cause and the circumstances, but it is Ilsa's struggle that defines the film, even as it changes Rick because he can't have her.

Back to the original Terminator, Sarah Connor started as a wimp defined by her victimhood. By the end of the film, she's gone beyond mere survival to drawing a line in the sand and dedicating herself to a higher cause.

Scarlett O'Hara is perpetual victim who ends the story hoping that another man will come along and rescue her.

There's a way to do a strong woman character, and they don't have to be over sexualized or a kick-ass commando. If they start as a victim, they don't end up as a victim. And their impact on the people around them is all out of proportion to their ability.

---

*nods*

The problem with Rey isn't that she is a strong character. The problem is that she is not a hero because she doesn't change. Other than having magic force powers literally given to her, how is she different in at the end of her second movie than she was in the beginning of the first? We don't know anything about her other than she breaks all the rules for force manipulation and Jedi training.

Why the blazes are we supposed to care about her?

The story is not about Rey's journey to be a hero, it's about establishing that women as a class can be heroes too. It's a collective benchmark instead of an individual achievement. It's not Rey that is successful, it's about all women through Rey.

And it's as boring as stale nachos and flat beer.

---

The thing is, we saw the roots of change in Luke. We saw him "trust his feelings" to blow up the Death Star. The scenes where he met Yoda, he and the audience learned not to take things at face value. The bit where he saw under Vader's mask in the tree. And the climax of the second film when he discovered just how outclassed he was.

When have we seen Rey struggle?

I agree that Finn and Poe have changed. But they aren't the viewpoint characters. Part of me can't help but wonder if the films would be better if Finn was the viewpoint and Rey was just the catalyst like Leia was.❞❞

Tags: Princess Leia ∙ badass ∙ sexuality ∙ woman ∙ damsel in distress ∙ hero ∙ Casablanca ∙ Ilsa Lund ∙ Terminator ∙ Sarah Connor ∙ Scarlett O'Hara ∙ perpetual victim ∙ Rey ∙ Star Wars ∙ Luke Skywalker ∙ Finn ∙ Poe ∙ struggle ∙ Yoda ∙ Jedi

❝❝People don't do good because of the law. People do good because it's the right thing to do. People choose good because it makes the World a little better than it was. It's the choice and the action that makes a responsible adult.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ do good ∙ right thing ∙ choice ∙ action ∙ responsibility

❝❝Public pressure had nothing to do with it. Like most great moments in American history, ordinary people chose the right thing and to hell with what the elected officials thought or did. Americans have been doing that for almost 250 years. It's a part of our mythology. How many of our great stories and films are about the underdog taking a stand and winning?❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ American ∙ history ∙ ordinary people ∙ right thing ∙ elected officials ∙ mythology ∙ underdog ∙ taking a stand

❝❝History changes not because of Great People doing Great Things, but because of ordinary people choosing extraordinary things.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ history ∙ choice ∙ ordinary people

““It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.””

— Samuel Adams

Tags: Samuel Adams ∙ majority ∙ Irate ∙ tireless ∙ minority ∙ freedom

““Without freedom I am a slave in shackles on a ship lost at sea. With freedom I am a captain; I am a pirate; I am an admiral; I am a scout; I am the eagle souring overhead; I am the north star guiding a crew; I am the ship itself; I am whatever I choose to be.””

— Richelle E. Goodrich

Tags: Richelle E. Goodrich ∙ freedom ∙ slave ∙ shackles ∙ ship ∙ lost at sea

““Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.””

— Ronald Regan

Tags: Ronald Regan ∙ freedom ∙ generations ∙ fought ∙ protect ∙ handed on

““May we think of freedom not as the right to do as we please, but as the opportunity to do what is right.””

— Peter Marshall

Tags: Peter Marshall ∙ freedom ∙ right

Your job is to provide access to all ideas so people can make their own choices.

Tags: Dwight D. Eisenhower ∙ history ∙ choice

““Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.””

— Rick Warren

Tags: Rick Warren ∙ culture ∙ lies ∙ lifestyle ∙ fear ∙ hate ∙ love ∙ agree ∙ nonsense ∙ compromise ∙ convictions ∙ compassionate

Physics of energy generation makes Polis’ 100 percent renewables goal unlikely

““Electric grids are complex networks and interconnections that rely on a steady supply of electricity, but that also must maintain extremely close control of the frequency of the alternating current.

America operates on 60 cycles per second, or 60 Hz. That grid frequency can vary only about 2 Hz in either direction, says Griffey. “These are small variations, but if it drops below that you start kicking off loads,” he said. “Bad things happen and your system crashes.”

The grid is so sensitive to these variations that power producers must provide both reserve capacity to deal with sudden load increases and “grid inertia” to keep the frequency stable.

“You have to have inertia on the system that helps buffer load changes, and inertia is provided by turbines that spin. Renewables don’t have inertia,” said Griffey.

Without the electrical inertia available from fuel-powered, constantly-spinning generators, the entire grid can crash unexpectedly if the wind stops blowing while the sun isn’t shining.

This means that renewables like wind and solar will always require backup generators to provide both inertia and reliable power to take up unexpected loads.

And how much backup is required increases with the amount of renewables in the system.

“The more intermittent capacity you have, or the more unreliable capacity you have, you actually have to increase that reserve margin to carry more backup,” Griffey said.

“In the case of an all-wind system you’re going to be carrying 90 percent, give or take, to back it up because [windmills] only provide 5 to 15% of equivalent capacity,” said Griffey.

By equivalent capacity Griffey means that the advertised theoretical capacity of a wind farm of say 30 megawatts, called the “nameplate capacity,” only ever actually produces a fraction of that amount, called the “efficiency factor.”

Other sources place the efficiency factor of wind generators between 25% and 40%.””
     — Scott Weiser

Tags: Scott Weiser ∙ clipping ∙ Charles Griffey ∙ electric grid ∙ alternating current ∙ 60 Hz ∙ reserve capacity ∙ renewable ∙ wind power ∙ solar power

Tags: Google ∙ Alphabet ∙ censorship ∙ judgement ∙ approval

““The solution to this problem isn’t increasing the censorship powers of the already-bloated police state as carceral feminists are demanding; it’s fighting the idea that a woman’s body is something to be ashamed of.””

— Maggie McNeill

Tags: Maggie McNeill ∙ censorship ∙ police state ∙ carceral ∙ feminist ∙ woman ∙ body ∙ shame

““But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.””

— James Iredell

Tags: James Iredell ∙ freedom of religion ∙ America ∙ pagans ∙ Muslims

““We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.””

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Tags: Martin Luther King ∙ experience ∙ voluntary ∙ oppresive

““Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.””

— Thomas Jefferson

Tags: Thomas Jefferson ∙ Jesus ∙ Jew ∙ Gentile ∙ Christian ∙ Muslim ∙ Hindu ∙ infidel

““Modern feminism is largely about encouraging women to adopt the worst behaviours of men.””

— Tim Newman

Tags: Tim Newman ∙ feminism ∙ worst ∙ behavior ∙ men ∙ women

““It's interesting that the people who believe that throwing a milkshake in someone's face shouldn't be considered assault are often the same people who believe that 'saying things' should be.””

— Ricky Gervais, Tweeted at 5:04 AM - 30 Jun 2019

Tags: Ricky Gervais ∙ milkshake ∙ assault

Tags: Hong Kong ∙ China ∙ protest ∙ capitalism ∙ human rights ∙ City That Ate A Country

Public spectacle to bypass the law and suppress dissent.

Tags: maxims ∙ labels

“Michael Lacey and James Larkin's website, Backpage.com was seized in April 2018 and they were arrested for allegedly facilitating prostitution. They have maintained their innocence, saying the publishing on their website, which included adult ads and general classifieds, is protected by the First Amendment.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Michael Lacey ∙ James Larkin ∙ FOSTA ∙ Backpage.com ∙ prostitution ∙ First Amendment

❝❝"People of color" don't need me to make them victims, they are too busy doing it themselves.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ people of color ∙ victims

Public spectacle to bypass the law and suppress dissent.

Tags: abortion ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ gaming the system ∙ protest industry ∙ 2016 election ∙ climate change ∙ socialism ∙ victimhood ∙ racist ∙ protesters

❝❝HRC was not that likable as a candidate. The image of HRC appealed more than the actuality. She's many things, but she's not appealing, probably because she doesn't seem to connect on a personal level. That was something that Bill Clinton excelled at, and the lack in HRC just came off as disappointing.

---

My claim was that people relied on the polls so much that they couldn't be bothered to double check what was happening.

The election of HRC was already in confusion, not in the least because she manipulated the rules to deny anyone else the nomination. It wasn't the first time that people decided they didn't want her as a candidate. Even her election to the Senate wasn't so much winning as controlling the process to get her a Senate seat as a power base. Without that and without a big push from her husband, she couldn't make it as a candidate. As Bill Clinton's legacy became tainted and Democrats started avoiding him, HRC's "star power" faded.

I don't know why she avoided so many public appearances in 2016, although I suspect it's health issues that she never told people about. That certainly didn't help her.

You can blame Comey, you can blame the LEAKED emails, but HRC was never a strong candidate. She didn't even want to go up against Gore. She didn't dare go up against Bush League in 2004 because she was afraid she be washed up if she lost. In 2007, she got sold out by the Democrat leadership because they didn't want her in the White House. In thirty years, her reasons for running for President was that she was a woman, and it was time. Her whole strategy centered on victimhood while implying that she was owed the Presidency because Bill and others had done her wrong.❞❞

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ 2016 election ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ James Comey ∙ Al Gore ∙ George W Bush ∙ Bush League ∙ White House ∙ Democrats

Cross posted at www.teknopagan.com/files/Thorium190619.html

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ColdFusion ∙ thorium ∙ nuclear power ∙ cross posted

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ progressive ∙ Bernie Sanders ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Yaron Brook ∙ Ayn Rand Institute ∙ poor ∙ private property ∙ profit ∙ individual ∙ permission ∙ industrial revolution ∙ running water ∙ electricity

““I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.””

— Robert A. Heinlein

Tags: Robert A. Heinlein ∙ free ∙ individual ∙ responsibility

❝❝If one single person means you can't honor your country, then you probably never honored it to begin with.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ patriot ∙ country

❝❝In my experience, professional academics are appallingly ignorant outside their fields, and often ignorant of their field outside their specific school of thought. Especially in the humanities or the soft sciences.

Outside of the real world, success is measured by publication and complication, not the practical application. Shakespeare is not just a dead white guy's words on a page, it's about understanding character and narrative and the blossoming of human nature. It's about passing on stories and showing the future what worked for us and those who went before.

There's a reason why the "dead white males" stuff stuck around, it's because it worked. That doesn't mean it excludes all other possibilities, it means we start with what we know worked so we can learn to see what else could happen.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ academics ∙ publication ∙ complication ∙ practical ∙ Shakespeare ∙ dead white male

❝❝Save us from the crusaders. “Here I come to save the day!”

Whatever form WestCiv and America specifically ends up with, you're still going to have to live with people who disagree and hate everything you stand for. You don't build communities by excluding people you don't like.

Crusading just means "your" side will win for a short while. And the the whole cycle starts again.

---

Unknown today. In his time, his writings were very well known and pretty influential. He wrote Our Enemy, the State among other things

I cited him in the first place is because a top down approach doesn't work for very long, if it works at all. People resent being told what to do, especially if you force them. I don't have a detailed plan because I don't think that any one person or any one group has all the answers. I think a big, big part of the problem is that we usually phrase our social problems in dualities, this or that. Dualities exclude other choices, it's all or nothing. So when I see phases like "save Western Civilization," it tells me that someone is reinforcing the original problem, not finding a solution.

No matter how good their plan may be, anything based on a dual choice and only a dual choice is doomed. That's the point that Nock tried to make in that article. People won't submit to Greater Authority for Their Own Good. The people you might convince won't listen until after the stuff hits the fan.

---

To start with, we could enforce the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment clearly outlaws most of the Federal government.

Given how little the Federal government pays attention to the Constitution and it's own laws, I don't think additional restrictions would work.

---

The Constitution was designed to rein in government. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers. Unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution, the Federal government doesn't have it. Or at least it shouldn't.

The one time that the Constitution was amended to restrict the people was a disaster.

It wasn't until the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th that the public perception of limited government turned to expecting an activist government with virtually unlimited powers.

I don't care about SCOTUS in the 20th Century, I'm pretty sure that time travel causes unintended consequences.

---

See, I'm not sure if adding more government is the solution to bad government. Hmm, I might have said something like that before.

And I don't think trading insults is the way to go. Sometimes winning isn't nearly as important as keeping the other guy from reaching the goal.

---

Isn't adding things like term limits and engineering the constraints adding to government?

I wasn't talking about insulting the voters. Imagine a boxing match. Which shows more skill, the ability to take and dish out punch after punch? Or the ability not to get hit while letting the other guy hurt himself trying to hurt you?

Which leaves you better able to go to work after?

---

Yes, the Constitution is a restraint device. But it hasn't worked. Why should another work? This is where you lose me.

Whatever Trump may or may not be, what happens next? Trump is rare, most people can't fight dirty for an extended time. If the only structure we can build depends on fighting dirty for every advantage, how are we better off?

---

No, it hasn't, not for at least 85 years. Although I think a strong case can be made that it hasn't more than a century. What we've been living under is the illusion that the Constitution is working and that more government is a good thing.

I've argued that term limits are meaningless when the major parties control who gets on the ballot. I've also argued that primary elections divert attention away from the real stakes. CGP Grey has a great video explaining why first part the post voting is not a good thing.

I keep returning to this because I think it is critical. We've been indoctrinated for generations to think that the way to fix a corrupt system is through system management. We've moved beyond the black mold stage, the pieces are so radioactive that using them not only risks our health but also could contaminate any new pieces we add. The benefits of "playing the system" and exploiting others and yes, even fighting dirty and ugly so outweigh long term thinking that there are actually severe disincentives to a long term IPD.

Case in point, and this one isn't even a libertarian thing. The US has more military bases in more foreign nations than any other power in history. Our military spending is bigger than the next thirty nations combined. We actively discourage other nations from establishing their own bases. We meddle in their internal affairs and throw hissy fits when people from other nations buy advertising aimed at our own elections. We bully others and tell ourselves that we fight the really bad bullies "for the little guy."

Why?

Do you think that Trump would stand down? Maybe close ten percent of our overseas bases? Do you think that American intervention leads to a safer world? Would you accept it if other nations did the same to the US?

Why is it bad when the deep state does it, but OK when Trump uses the same tools?

---

You misunderstand. I'm waiting for the system to rip itself apart. I don't have to work actively against it, I just don't have to patch it up or compensate for it's failure.

One area we do disagree is that the right is somehow more moral than the left. Another is that a system controlled by the right is preferable to one controlled by the left. The right gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, and the left gave us Obamacare. Hard to say at this point which has done the most damage. As for Trump, well, trade and tariffs alone are balanced on a knifeblade between what might possibly work if we are extremely lucky and what might cause disaster so epic as to make the Great Depression and World War II look like last Tuesday.

---

It's not the voters I don't trust. I don't trust the "options" the voters are allowed to have. You can have your left arm or your right leg cut off, but you must choose one.

I'm willing to let my principles compete without the coercion of the state or what is "morally right." That's more than either the right or the left want, they want to hold a gun to people's heads for Your Own Good.

The right is self-limiting? The War on Drugs. Too big to fail. An ongoing overseas war that for the first time in American history, has soldiers fighting who weren't even born when it started.

While I marginally prefer conservatives, no one and certainly no institution gets a pass because of the label. Branding is a horrific way to govern. What have you done for me lately?

---

The duality is an illusion. More accurately the duality is a condition required for the system to work. But that doesn't mean the system is a good idea or the best idea. Yet that duality by it's nature locks us into either/or and calls it the best choice.

The system wants us to choose the best baseball team when I want to swim.

My problem is that I see statists on "both" sides, and the right is no less threatening than the left. Your premise is that the right is a better choice and my premise is that statists (any statists) threaten freedom.❞❞

Tags: Western Civilization ∙ America ∙ disagree ∙ crusade ∙ Albert Jay Nock ∙ top down ∙ dualism ∙ Constitution ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ restraint ∙ government ∙ Federalist papers ∙ Anti-Federalist papers ∙ SCOTUS ∙ progressive ∙ solution ∙ Donald Trump ∙ term limits ∙ primary election ∙ CGP Grey ∙ first past the post ∙ system management ∙ milirarist ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ voters ∙ statist

❝❝If you teach people to only take power from their victimhood, all you're really doing is teaching them to stay victims.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ power ∙ victimhood ∙ victims

❝❝I also greet the sunrise every day that I can. That's something I learned from my Baptist deacon grandfather. Granted, I do it with a bit more ceremony than he ever did. He was content to do it from the front porch with a cup of coffee.

Oh, and I've been known to dance naked in the light of a full Moon.

You can't embarrass me for following rites and rituals, anymore than you can embarrass a Christian for taking communion or an orthodox Jew for keeping kosher. My faith isn't my politics, and it doesn't matter to me what others think about it. It's between me and the Divine.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: cross posted ∙ maxims ∙ sunrise ∙ grandfather ∙ Baptist ∙ ceremonial ∙ dance naked ∙ full Moon ∙ rites and rituals ∙ Christian ∙ communion ∙ Jew ∙ kosher ∙ faith ∙ Divine

❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.

Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.

Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.

Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.

---

And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.

Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.

If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.

---

Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.

While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.

---

Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.

It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.

And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?

Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.

---

*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.

I don't accept your premise of either/or.

Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.

If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?

---

The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:

““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.

Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””

— timeDOTcom/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/

Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape is introduced into the discussion mentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.

When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.

There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?

Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"

One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.

---

“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”

Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?

Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.

If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.

Just like what is happening now.

The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.

That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.

---

I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.

I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.

Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.

That's it.

Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.

---

*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.

Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.

Is that what you want?

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”

---

Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?

I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.

I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).

Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?

Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?

Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.

---

For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.

Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.

Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.

Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.

Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.

What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right

---

You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.

I don't.

I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.

---

Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?

---

"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Accepting responsibility does.

But not if they are denied the choice.

---

Then give me numbers instead of allegations.

At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.

---

It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.

My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."

I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.

I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.

---

I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.

---

I am not saying most women are irresponsible.

I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.

I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.

Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.

Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.

Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.

Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.

The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?

I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.

If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."

If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.

So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.

If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ reproductive rights ∙ privilege ∙ women ∙ fetus ∙ man ∙ rape ∙ health care ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ sex ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Christian ∙ patriarchy ∙ American ∙ presumed guilty ∙ domestic violence ∙ murder ∙ sex rules

❝❝If the American government were a car, you would have patched three tires, overhauled the transmission, replaced the electrical system, and washed the windows. Meanwhile it still leaks oil and has a disturbing habit of catching fire every once in a while.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments on Progressives collude to prevent investigation of attempted coup

Tags: maxims ∙ car

““None of these companies has a problem operating in European countries with much more restrictive abortion laws than those in the US, nor Arab nations which ban it outright. Disney has a resort in China, not a country known for its liberal approach to human rights. But apparently Georgia is now beyond the pale.””

— Tim Newman, Personae non gratae

Tags: Tim Newman ∙ Georgia ∙ Europe ∙ Arab ∙ China ∙ Disney ∙ abortion ∙ human rights

Tags: memes ∙ picture ∙ anonymous

““Marx is a dead white male!””

— anonymous

Tags: anonymous ∙ Karl Marx ∙ dead white male

Yahoo pulls the plug on fake profiles used by British police

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment

❝❝Let's break the myth that government is the first, best, and last solution.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ first ∙ best ∙ and last solution

❝❝The allegations against Trump described the Clintons' behavior.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ allegations ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ behavior

❝❝American medical costs started outpacing inflation right after Medicare and Medicaid become law. If that doesn’t convince you, remember those costs rose drastically every time the Federal government tried to “fix” the problem.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Medicaid ∙ Medicare ∙ medical costs ∙ Federal government ∙ fix

““Everywhere she goes, evil men die, and we cheer her for it. And she grows more sure that she is good and right. She believes that her destiny is to build a better world for everyone. If you believed it; if you truly believed it, would you not kill anyone who came between you and paradise?””

— Game of Thrones

Tags: Game of Thrones ∙ good ∙ right ∙ evil ∙ cheer ∙ destiny ∙ better world ∙ kill ∙ paradise

❝❝Trump's one virtue is that he's a disruptor.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Donald Trump ∙ virtue ∙ disrupt

““In the event of a flat tire feminism will be suspended until a man has changed the tire.””

— Kirby McCain

Tags: Kirby McCain ∙ flat tire ∙ feminism

““We are conditioned from a variety of sources to automatically expect agreement to follow from understanding.””

— Franklin Evans

Tags: Franklin Evans ∙ conditioned ∙ agrement ∙ understanding

❝❝Christians over the years have killed a lot more people in the name of their God or for the Greater Good than anyone else. It seems to be a mark of monotheism, and something the rest of us wish the monotheists would grow out of of.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christians ∙ monotheism ∙ name of God ∙ greater good

❝❝If you are going to claim enlightenment in the name of your faith, you'd better damn accept the sins too.❞❞

— NeoWayland

❝❝I know that expertise does more to define blind spots than establish authority.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ expert ∙ blind spots ∙ authority

Then I choose not to follow a Biblical morality.

Tags: Biblical morality ∙ Old Testament ∙ Decalogue ∙ Christians ∙ Jews ∙ New Testament ∙ Jesus ∙ John ∙ costs ∙ benefits ∙ submit ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Biblical authority

❝❝We don't agree with each other, not entirely. Just because someone is religious doesn't automatically mean that they are defective. If nothing else, that faith gives them a different perspective. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, more or less, just different. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not. It depends on the individual and circumstances.

Religion is bad is just as big a trap as science is good. There was an author named Isaac Bonewits who wrote on the limitations of dualism. Either/or thinking can trap you. One example is that if something is ACCEPTABLE than everything else is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It becomes easier to define what doesn't work for you as not fitting your worldview instead on it's own characteristics. If all you are looking for is WHITE, than anything else including fuzzy pink becomes NOT WHITE. I'm sure you'll agree that while black and fuzzy pink are NOT WHITE, neither are they the same thing. And we still haven't touched on semi-sweet.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religious ∙ defect ∙ faith ∙ perspective ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ religion ∙ science ∙ Isaac Bonewits ∙ dualism

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ PolicyEd ∙ Russ Roberts ∙ economic progress ∙ America ∙ stagnating wages ∙ poor people ∙ middle class ∙ prosperity

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ SAT ∙ affirmative action ∙ adversity ∙ Asians ∙ racist ∙ social justice

❝❝I'm a pagan who is not part of the climate crisis crowd. Two of the biggest reasons are the climate changes on Mars during roughly the same period and the fact that the models haven't been accurate yet (and had an 18 year gap). Long story short, we don't know enough about the climate to even say what the baseline is, much less fiddling with the thermostat.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ pagan ∙ Mars ∙ climate change crowd ∙ climate crisis ∙ model

❝❝Pardon, but attacking their compassion may not be the best way to go.

I don't have an answer either, but I think if you asked most conservatives if abortion was more compassionate than taking care of unwanted and/or disabled babies, they would laugh in your face. You would hand them both the issue and the moral high ground.

---

First, those are different issues. Conservatives aren't a monolithic block. Not every conservative has issues with vaccines, and not every conservative thinks that autism is worse than death. I've not run the numbers, but I suspect the crossover with the pro-life crowd is pretty small.

Second, I'm not the one you'll have to convince. I have mixed feelings myself and it's one of those issues where I can see more than one side depending on circumstance. But when you tell most conservatives that "killing babies" is more compassionate, you've lost the argument with them and they will fight you to the end. It doesn't help that Democrats have defined abortion as their primary issue and practically THE only standard that matters for a Supreme Court justice. It doesn't help that Roe vs. Wade has no constitutional precedent and would be inevitably challenged as soon as the balance on the court changed.

This has always been a divisive issue. When conservatives look at Virginia, they see it as a call to action. This "slaughter of innocents" is something that they've been forced to accept for almost 50 years, and they are ready to fight back hard.

---

By your standards.

By their standards of compassion, they are saving babies.

And that "they" includes many women who do not believe that feminists, liberals, and Democrats speak for them. You can't win this issue if you dismiss those women as objects who can't think on their own and must be "saved" from the evil patriarchy.

---

I've my own issues with Christians.

But…

How is what they do that much different from what you just did? You just described a "come to Jesus" moment only with a different premise.

If faith means anything at all, it has to be freely chosen. That means that people are going to make choices that you don't like, don't understand, and don't approve of. You are no more entitled to judge their creed for them than they are entitled to judge yours for you. You can't win a battle of faith. Neither can they.

If you tell them that they are ignorant and living in fear and that everything they believe about their god is wrong, they have no reason to listen. All you are doing is feeding their perceived persecution. They don't believe they are victimized.

And not all of them are.

---

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that they are right. And I am certainly not defending them. My own feelings on the subject are way too conflicted.

What I am saying is that in this case the liberal/progressive ideas of compassion and sympathy are completely different from the conservative ideas. You're using the same words but you are having completely different conversations. Attack them in the name of compassion and in their minds you just made their case for them and without realizing it.

The assumptions and perspectives are completely different. Your logic won't work for them, just as theirs won't work for you. Both of you are starting from absolutes for one thing, even if those absolutes are mostly opposite.

---

As a libertarian, I want less government than absolutely necessary. I'm not thrilled with idea of restricting rights, but I'm also not thrilled with the idea of government "picking up the slack" so to speak. And I oppose government interference with sex. But that doesn't mean I'm completely with the "left" on sex either. I don't think there should be government funding for private charities or other organizations. Which means Planned Parenthood shouldn't be getting grants or funding.

Or to cut through all the verbiage, rights good, government meddling bad.

I don't trust in the wisdom of government to "do the right thing."

---

See, my problem is that I see both major parties using government to interfere and push their own agendas. "For Your Own Good!" "For The Greater Good!" "Think Of The Children!"

Sex is mostly a voluntary act. I see abortion mostly and commonly used as the "contraception of last resort." A hook-up and regret after a drunken encounter is not the same thing as rape or incest. I think a case can be made for abortion because of rape or incest provided we accept that a case can be made for adoption as well.

We forget that charity used to happen outside of government. Marvin Olasky wrote The Tragedy of American Compassion. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, Olasky does point out that charity used to be a short-term thing, privately and locally administered, and above all intended to get people on their feet and responsible for their own choices. Instead of a faceless bureaucracy that measures it's "success" by "clients" processed and money spent, private charity measures it's success differently.

If people had to take responsibility, maybe abortion wouldn't be casual.

---

I'm not asking you to do anything else. I am saying that they have their own reasons which make sense to them. Their reasons are just as important to them as yours are to you.

Stars above, I get so very tired of the either/or dualism. It's never going to be winner take all. The longer we pretend that one side can decisively win, the longer the struggle will last. The people pushing hardest for either/or don't care which side wins as long as both sides are so blinded by the "righteousness" of their own cause that the never realize just how much they are surrendering to the "system."

All because somebody has to be in charge. All because we have to meddle in the lives and choices of others. All because we can't trust each other to make the "right choice" and take responsibility for that choice.

I'm not conservative. I'm not defending their position. I am not asking you to accept them on faith or anything else.

I'm saying that to really resolve this, we're going to have to sit down and talk through our differences. Smashing heads, pointing guns, and using the rule of law to declare one morality supreme above all isn't going to do anything for the long term. It will always be a holding pattern until the other side gets an advantage.

Think about all the passion we're giving away. There has got to be a better way.

ETA: I don't care who did it first. I don't care who did it more. I just want the whole mess over.

---

Pardon, but the liberal party also regularly proclaims that they are for the children. The last Democrat nominee ran as the "women and children" candidate. In 1996 a Democrat president proclaimed that the era of big government was over.

I don't think that government is the first, best, and last solution to our problems. I don't think politicos are qualified to decide what should be taught in schools, sex ed or not.

And here's the opinion that is not going to make me popular. If you can't afford children, you should rethink sex. People keep throwing in things like rape and incest, but most sex in this country is consensual. Mixing rape, incest, and consensual sex objectifies the woman and makes her not responsible for her own choices.

No, I am not ignoring the man in these cases. I am saying that rape and incest are the exception to the rule. Even under the ever changing definition of rate in today's culture, where some women do believe that regret equals rape.

At the moment, we're in a mess with both major parties wanting control over sex. You can blame the Republicans all you want, but thanks to #MeToo it's not the "patriarchy" that is collapsing, it's how we deal with one another and how we share sex.

I'm not going to make the conservative arguments for them. I'm telling you how they feel and how they are going to react.

Kavanaugh was asked about abortion. Most of the articles about Gorsuch speculated on how he might rule in abortion cases. And most of the concern about Trump picking judges gets coached in the impact it will have on abortion cases. Like it or not, this has become the standard.

The natural conclusion to the argument that if only a woman has the right to decide, then the man has no financial obligation to ending the abortion or paying child support.

Personally I don't think that tax dollars should go to any organization providing services, medical or otherwise. But that's not the conservative argument. I'll also point out what any accountant can tell you, if government pays for a certain class of services, that frees up funding for other things.

Government involvement in health care (all types) has raised the cost of "essential services." It's no accident that health care prices have skyrocketed since Medicare and Medicaid became law, boosted by every attempt to "control costs." It doesn't help that since health insurance became an employee benefit, people don't know what they are paying for.

If we're really going to have this discussion about solutions, one thing that has got to be on the table is removing government intervention. Yes, that means no government restrictions on abortion, but that also means no government (taxpayer) funded healthcare.

---

“The difference here being that Democrats support policies that help women, children, and families of all demographics.”

I'm sorry, but that is not true. For much of my life I've lived next to the Diné and Hopi. Democrat policies are very selective as to which groups get "helped" under which circumstances. I am not saying that the Republicans are better. I am saying that "public solutions" to social problems don't usually work, especially when they are administered hundreds or thousands of miles away from the actual problem. There are other reasons of course. Words matter, actions matter more, intentions don't.

Politicians are not qualified to determine curriculum, but neither are technocrats who don't live near the school and whose kids don't go to the school. Problems get solved when the people responsible for solving the problems have "skin in the game." Look at this. I say I don't believe that government is the first, last, and best solution and you're telling me why the Democrat experts are better. I'm not praising the Republicans. I'm criticizing the assumption that any Federal experts are better equipped to solve problems because they are Official and sanctioned by the appropriate authorities.

Responsibility for what one chooses to do is conservative? I know that is not what you meant, but it comes off as sex without consequences. Responsibility is important, and as long as sex is voluntary and consensual it's only adult to consider the consequences. Just as it's adult to consider before driving drunk, or stealing a protest sign that you don't agree with. Actions have consequences, the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice despite the threat of punishment.

Now I am not talking about not punishing people for their crimes or bad behavior. I'm saying that PIV sex is usually a choice and that, protected or not, might result in pregnancy. If you don't want kids, if you can't afford kids, the best time to think about that is before the moment when the hormones start carbonating.

I've never disputed that women have human rights. What I pointed out was the standard for a Federal judge has become their opinion on abortion. That's become one cornerstone of Democrat policy. Regardless of if I personally believe if abortion is right or wrong or if a women's choice should govern if abortion happens, I do find myself agreeing with those who say that the only way abortion could be made legal nationwide is through judicial declaration and not through the democratic process. Small d there. Throw in public monies and suddenly a right becomes a privilege.

I'm pointing out the logical fallacy of claiming it's a "woman's right" until it comes time to pay the bill. Choice without responsibility usually gives us spoiled brats, no matter what the gender or orientation.

The unregulated world is a charitable one. It's when charity becomes part of government that it becomes Somebody Else's Problem and Americans stop paying attention to what is needed. Americans voluntarily give more to charity than anyone else on the planet. Whether it's a child fallen down a well or a hurricane flooding New Orleans, we're there. More times than not, it's the Official™ charity and relief that gets in the way.

There's a good reason for that, and It is something I touched on earlier. Charity is supposed to be short term. When you tell someone that they will have government health care no matter what or that they will have financial aid to help pay the monthly bills no matter what, what incentive do they have to do for themselves? When you say someone needs government help, aren't you really saying that they are not good enough to do it on their own?

I'm not the first one to point out that the rising costs in heath care drastically outpaced inflation starting right after Medicare and Medicaid became law. Or that continued attempts to "fix healthcare" keep causing prices to go up and availability to go down. Think about it. The relative costs of Happy Meals, pocket calculators, cell phones, and bathroom towels have decreased while the availability and selection has gone up. That's not true with medical care, one of the most regulated industries out there. The disparity in pharmaceutical costs alone should make you wonder.

Removing government from the solution does work even if the government experts and the experts who depend on government tell you it won't. There's a couple of dozen special interest groups right there, all of them greedy for power and money. Somehow the accepted solution is always more government.❞❞

Tags: Christians ∙ compassion ∙ conservatives ∙ moral authority ∙ vaccine ∙ autism ∙ abortion ∙ Democrats ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Virginia ∙ feminist ∙ liberals ∙ patriarchy ∙ faith

““I prefer a dangerous liberty to peaceful slavery.””

““Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.””

- usually attributed to Count Palatine of Posen, cited by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract and later by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison.

Tags: dangerous ∙ liberty ∙ peaceful ∙ slavery ∙ Count Palatine of Posen ∙ Jean-Jacques Rousseau ∙ Thomas Jefferson

❝❝When government gets involved, count on costs going up, quality going down, and availability diminishing.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ costs ∙ quality deteriotes ∙ availability

““Be so good they can't ignore you.””

— Steve Martin

Tags: Steve Martin ∙ good ∙ ignore ∙ cross posted

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ sex workers ∙ Robert Kraft ∙ Elizabeth Nolan Brown ∙ John Urquhart ∙ exaggerated numbers ∙ Richard Estes

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ FreedomToons ∙ Foundation for Economic Education ∙ health insurance ∙ health care

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ Alyssa Milano ∙ sex ∙ sex strike ∙ Georgia ∙ Ohio ∙ feminist ∙ abstinence ∙ conservatives

❝❝I don't think government is the first, best, and last solution.

I don't think the emergencies are really emergencies. As long as there is a mechanism for government to act outside the law, government will act outside the law.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ first, best, and last solution ∙ emergencies

❝❝Private property.

Take me for example. I pay for the domain name registration and the web hosting on my sites. I choose what I put there. I am no more required to give someone else access than I am required to let that someone else sell used cars off my patio or erect a Decalogue monument on my front lawn.

Having said that, if your company advertises and has built it's services on allowing people to speak or write their mind, it's hypocritical to allow one viewpoint without others provided no one advocates harming others, taking or destroying property, or breaking the law.

---

Private property still applies.

They can't do it in my place and I can't do it in theirs.

---

The road is a commons. The shopping mall isn't. The portals to the internet are provided by your ISP, not the social media.

Social media is something you choose to use. As the old saying goes, if you are not paying for the product, you are the product. Or at least your data and your access to the "cool sites" is.❞❞

Tags: private property ∙ domain registration ∙ web hosting ∙ choose ∙ speak or write their mind ∙ road ∙ commons ∙ shopping mall ∙ portals ∙ you are the product

““The first law is that the desire of authorities in charge of security for information will continue in a straight line with no limits in time and space short of the heat death of the universe. The second law is that the willingness of their authorities to supply them with the budget they need to do that has very definite limits, both in time and space. Hence the third law, which is the one we are now operating under. The information assembled by security authorities invariably overwhelms their ability to analyze the information. They are, in effect, suffocated by their own insecurity.””

— David Weber, Cauldron of Ghosts

Tags: David Weber ∙ authority ∙ security ∙ information ∙ budget ∙ overwhelm ∙ analyze

❝❝Democrats have been fear mongering too. Especially since Trump announced.

I'm not going to say who is right or wrong, but I am going to point out that both major parties have done fear mongering over decades. If that is one behavior you're questioning, you should ask why is it bad when "They" do it and good when "We" do it?

I too get tired of the dualism. But I don't see it limited to one party.

My blocked follower on this site would tell you that I am oversimplifying. I don't think I am. Both parties do it. Both parties are contributing to the problem. Both have media allies who sing their praises.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community Notes: Religious harassment at Florida Gathering, Calif. school removes Bible verse, and more!

Tags: maxims ∙ fear ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Donald Trump ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ They ∙ We ∙ dualism ∙ media allies

❝❝Since ethanol is heavily subsidized in the United States, the price at the pump does not reflect the actual cost to produce. Extra costs are buried in taxes and the Federal general fund. These costs include collecting the tax, administering the tax, administrating the production and distribution of ethanol, and actual subsidies. It's nearly impossible to accurately calculate these costs, much less contain them.

Even with substantial subsidies, the technology doesn't exist to make ethanol economically from anything except food crops. Theoretically, almost any plant material can be used. Practically we haven't reached that point yet.

Government mandates and artificial demands for ethanol raise global food costs. The more crops required for ethanol, the bigger demand on food crops. The more ethanol that is required by law, the less food the poor can afford.

Mixing ethanol with gasoline makes fuel with less energy. More fuel must be used to move the same distance. There is ever growing political pressure to increase the ethanol and decrease the gasoline in the mix, which means even more fuel is needed.

Ethanol does not burn "cleaner" than gasoline. Ethanol does produce fewer greenhouse gases, but science hasn't yet found significant evidence that human-caused greenhouse gases significantly change the climate.

Ethanol is much more chemically reactive. Special (expensive) measures must be taken to transport and store ethanol. It doesn't "keep" as well as gasoline.

Farming crops to produce a gallon of ethanol takes more than a gallon of gasoline, especially considering the soil additives needed.❞❞

 ethanol 

Tags: maxims ∙ ethanol ∙ United States ∙ price ∙ costs ∙ tax ∙ subsidies ∙ mandates ∙ food crops ∙ cleaner ∙ greenhouse gases ∙ climate ∙ chemically reactive ∙ gasoline

Two criticisms of my libertarian ideas is that they are juvenile and too simple.

I'm frequently told by conservatives, “I used to be libertarian but I grew out of it.”

Let's not forget “The world doesn't work like that. We have to live in the real world.”

Is this really how the World works? Or is this how the self-appointed “experts” want you to think how the World works?

Let's take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Remember that the Constitution limits government, not people.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So is there anything there about barrel length, how big the magazine is, or if it's a scary black color or not?

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that every Federal gun law violates the Second Amendment.

Yes, that reading is subject to interpretation. By experts determined to prove that their expertise should trump your common sense.

Don't you believe me? Toss in the Tenth.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Taken together, it's hard to dispute that every Federal gun law is invalid. Nothing about using guns only for hunting. Nothing about gun registries or background checks. Nothing about which guns can be sold to what people.

And that raises some interesting questions. Because if the experts are overcomplicating gun laws and regulations to get around the Constitution, what else might they be doing?

Except for the much abused interstate commerce clause, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power and authority over medications or intoxicants.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over education.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over banking, stock markets, and commodity markets.

Chances are if the Federal government claims authority over speech, elections, commerce, it doesn't have it.

So why do we think it does?

Because that's what the politicos, the technocrats, and the experts have told us.

The people don't benefit from complications. The experts do.

Let's make this basic. You know what a car should do. You know that the more extras you throw in, the more expensive the car is to own and operate. You know that a more expensive car is harder to design and is full of trade-offs. That last boost in performance is the most expensive. So you have to make a choice. Do you want something reliable that you can afford, or do you want to impress people?

Make it legislation instead of a car and that is the choice of the average Congress critter.

Do you want something that can do the job, or do you want to make yourself look important?

Experts complicate things that should be simple.

Tags: libertarian ∙ juvenile ∙ simple ∙ experts ∙ Federal government ∙ Constitution ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ legislation ∙ 2nd Amendment ∙ 10th Amendment

I've started using my long dormant Twitter account. There's nothing exciting there, just "political soundbites." I don't intend to follow anyone or comment on their tweets. I'm going to use Twitter my way.

Tags: Twitter

““Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?””

— Joseph Stalin

Tags: Joseph Stalin

““Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.””

— Alexis de Tocqueville

Tags: Alexis de Tocqueville ∙ democracy ∙ sociaism ∙ equality ∙ restraint ∙ servitude

❝❝There's a part of me that can't help but wonder what ol' Walt would have thought about a bunch of stormtroopers marching around the Disney parks. Even if it is May the Fourth.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Walt Disney ∙ May the Fouth ∙ stormtroopers

““Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.””

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Tags: Ralph Waldo Emerson ∙ persecuted ∙ contradicted

❝❝I'm going to say this again. If the Democrats are afraid of what Republicans do with government power…

…if Republicans are are afraid of what Democrats do with government power…

…if independents don't trust either the Democrats or the Republicans with government power…

…and if libertarians don't trust government power…

…maybe, just maybe, the government has too much power.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Leaks and Barr

Tags: maxims ∙ government power ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ independents ∙ libertarians

Hi there. I'm called NeoWayland and I'm libertarian. That means I think there is too much government.

I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I don't think he's good for liberty or the country. But I've also been watching the man for a long, long time. There's an exchange in the original Pirates of the Caribbean film.

““You are without doubt the worst pirate I've ever heard of.””

““But you have heard of me.””

And that's where we are, folks. Trump may be the worst president you ever heard of. But you have heard of him. And he plays the press better than almost anyone else on the planet.

Think about it, Trump has made several careers over several decades doing exactly that. He keeps turning bad press into press for his goals. Then he gets most of what he wants. He plays the long shots, more often than not he gets the payoff. Trump has spent his life turning obstacles and adversity into triumphs.

No, I don't like him. No, I don't trust him. But I can't deny Trump's success. The orange hair clown is a distraction. He plays a character to divert your attention, but underneath there is a first class operator and a pretty good executive.

Any of this is obvious to any one who bothered to do the research. That brings us up to just before the 2016 election.

You don't have to take my word for it, do some digging. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conspired to make HRC President. I'm not going to go over the shenanigans and rules lawyering that leveled the opposition in their party. It has it's roots in the superdelegates, and you don't need my instructions on how to clean your own house.

But HRC decided to go one step further. She decided that she needed a Republican clown to defeat. She picked Donald Trump. Without doing her homework, she bought into the image that he'd been selling for decades. HRC called in some favors. With Obama's help, Hillary set up a backup plan using ideas that have been very successful for the Democrats in the past. They tried to set up a false narrative that would give Democrats Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Trump and all Republicans for all time.

Or at least for the next eight years.

Yes, you read that right. Hillary Clinton picked Donald Trump to lose the election. And she called in every political marker she had to make sure he got the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton did not do her homework. Nobody in her camp did. They forgot that Trump turns adversity into advantage.

This isn't the first time Democrats have relied on false narratives. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Republicans were responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act over strong Democrat opposition. But because Republicans did not give special privilege and recognition to the designated victim class, they were "racist." In the public perception, "equal rights" got redefined into preferential treatment. But only for certain groups.

The later waves of feminism are way too complicated to untangle here. Feminism changed into a variation of the same theme. Preferential treatment AND special privilege on demand and as defined by certain very vocal women who claimed to speak for all. If a Republican politico did not support that instantly and without question, well, naturally they were misogynist and anti-woman. Never mind that the definitions constantly changed, or that the "rights" weren't always practical or even possible. No, certain women had to have what they demanded when they demanded and without consequence. Or the Republicans were keeping women down.

And then there is climate change. I've dealt with it extensively elsewhere. It doesn't use science, it uses the politics of victimhood. And you are not allowed to dissent.

There are other false narratives. But these are big ones from the Democrats. Republicans have their own, but I'm not going into those here.

Since at least the 1970s, Democrats have relied on the The Big Lie to manufacture narratives giving Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Republicans. Sometimes I wonder if the Democrat and progressive elites have forgotten how to do anything else.

And that brings us to the 2016 election aftermath. There was the narrative, Trump had colluded with Russians to steal the election. He was a traitor and a fool. All his supporters were uneducated and unsophisticated saps who Trump had exploited. Surely the virtuous Democrats could prevail against Orange Man Bad.

This time there was a difference. Any Trump watcher could tell you that Trump wasn't a politician. Most especially Trump wasn't the usual Republican politico who avoided political conflict in the name of bipartisanship. He couldn't be shamed or guilted into anything. Go after Trump publicly and he would hit back harder than you ever dreamed. Later he might call you up after and invite you to dinner and drinks, but that was after the hand was played.

This was Trump's background before he was elected.

And after? He was the Chief Executive. He just cleaned house a bit, put the right people in place at the right time, and was patient. He trusted in the American people and the rule of law. That law was on his side. All Trump had to do was the right thing. Talk about irony.

It could have been different if Democrats had gone after Trump for things he actually had done. Eminent domain abuses come to mind.

But no, everything was bet on one spin of the wheel. Democrats forgot that Trump built casinos. A well-run house never loses as long as it obeys the law and doesn't mess with the odds too much. All he had to do was the right thing.

Trump didn't "win" this one because of his virtue. He won this one because he played by the official rules. Not the unspoken rules that Washington has been using, but the actual official ones based in law and the faith of the American people. Because the Democrat elites didn't play by those rules, it gave Trump the Moral Authority to do what comes next. Not Absolute Moral Authority, but none of the Democrat leadership can challenge Trump when he goes after those who tried to take him down. Just for doing his job, Trump is going to be that much stronger in 2020.

So the Democrats are discredited.

If there is one piece of advice I hope you take from this, it's that you need to abandon the false narratives. Be true to your beliefs. By all means call Republicans out for breaking their word, but do the same for your own leadership. Don't look the other way because somebody famous claims to support your goals. Words matter, actions matter more, intentions don't. Don't take their word for it, see what they actually do.

If you are going to claim moral authority, you need to be true to your own morality.

Tags: ☆ ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ virtue ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Republicans ∙ Demorcrats ∙ goverment

Trauma Informed Investigations Stole My Son’s Future

““If you’d have asked me before my son was accused of sexual misconduct, I would have said that trauma-informed investigations were a good idea. Living through the '90s as a female college student, then as a woman motivated to be successful in a male-dominated field, sexual harassment, inequality, and forcible rape happened. It still happens today. Then so many victims were afraid to come forward as they are now. However, in our rush for justice, we are bearing witness to the creation of a new class of victim on college campuses and in the criminal justice system. The innocent.

These new victims aren’t given the presumption of innocence. They aren’t entitled to know the accusation against them. Evidence is withheld from them and their lawyers. Police officers ask deceptively leading questions, and school investigators are both judge and jury making life-altering sanction decisions based on the presumption that a ‘victim’ never lies. ””
     — A. Pebble

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ justice ∙ A. Pebble ∙ sexual misconduct ∙ trauma-informed investigations ∙ sexual harassment ∙ inequality ∙ forcible rape ∙ victims ∙ college campuses ∙ criminal justice system ∙ innocent ∙ presumption of innocence ∙ evidence ∙ lawyers ∙ police officers ∙ investigators ∙ judge and jury

““We are trying to save the people of the planet from the people ‘saving the planet.'””

— Caleb Rossiter, Skeptical scientist hijacks AOC Congressional climate hearing

Tags: Caleb Rossiter ∙ people ∙ of the planet ∙ saving the planet

““Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact.””

— Marlene Dietrich

Tags: Marlene Dietrich ∙ America ∙ cross posted ∙ sex ∙ obession ∙ fact

““I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed more if only they knew they were slaves.””

— Harriet Tubman

Tags: Harriet Tubman ∙ slaves ∙ freedom

A Modest Proposal For US Slavery Reparations

““Since most of the Democratic Presidential aspirants have come out in favor of at least studying reparations for slavery, I wanted to offer a common sense proposal. I propose that slavery reparation be paid for by the single organization that had the most to do with the existence and protection of slavery in this country: the Democratic Party.””
     — Warren Meyer

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Warren Meyer ∙ reparations ∙ Democrat party ∙ slavery ∙ common sense

Not what they wear, not who they live with, not what they eat, not what happens in the bedroom, not what they read, not how they do it, and not who they do it with.

Tags: Christians ∙ conservative ∙ religion ∙ Christianity ∙ maxims ∙ monotheism ∙ uniform rule of law ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ freedom of religion ∙ live & let live

““My father may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.””

— Elliott Roosevelt

Tags: Elliott Roosevelt ∙ FDR ∙ IRS ∙ weapon ∙ retribution

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ GrayStillPlays ∙ Citystate ∙ anarchy ∙ lawless ∙ game ∙ simulator ∙ rule of law ∙ responsibility ∙ libertarian ∙ anarchism

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ City Journal ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ Green New Deal ∙ United States ∙ carbon emmissions ∙ James Meigs ∙ Mark Mills ∙ Popular Mechanics ∙ Manhattan Institute ∙ wind power ∙ solar power

““Capitalism works better than it sounds. Socialism sounds better than it works.””

— Creative Deduction

Tags: Creative Deduction ∙ capitalism ∙ socialism ∙ Brian Micklethwait

““Capitalism is the only reason socialism has any money to redistribute.””

— Aprille Park

Tags: Aprille Park ∙ capitalism ∙ sociaism ∙ Brian Micklethwait

❝❝The first and most important "women's right" is the right to vote. Then comes the right to earn, to keep what is earned, and to hold property. Free speech and the rest listed in the Bill of Rights come next. Reproductive "rights" don't even make the top ten. Especially since the last time I checked, sex is supposed to be a consensual activity.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from The “no news is good news” open thread

Tags: maxims ∙ women's rights ∙ right to vote ∙ property rights ∙ Bill of Rights ∙ reproductive rights ∙ sex ∙ consensual activity

Basically they didn't want another church telling their church what to do.

Tags: maxims ∙ mutt ∙ Louisiana ∙ Tennessee ∙ racial justice ∙ freedom ∙ privilege

❝❝If you don't have the right to walk away from any organization, it is not freedom. Meanwhile, there's always the option of finding another job. If there are no other jobs, then chances are that's a government sanctioned monopoly. There are plenty of other ways to protect worker rights, many which work better than unions. ESOPs are one example.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from The “no news is good news” open thread

Tags: maxims ∙ unions ∙ monopoly ∙ worker rights ∙ ESOP

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Lauren Chen ∙ CBS ∙ social media ∙ Donald Trump ∙ violence ∙ Mar-a-Lago ∙ Nazis ∙ white nationalism

Basically they didn't want another church telling their church what to do.

Tags: religious freedom ∙ American ∙ Christians ∙ tweeted ∙ English ∙ Protestant ∙ church ∙ compromise ∙ America ∙ UK ∙ Universal Declaration of Human Rights ∙ cross posted

❝❝Just to point out the obvious, previously language changed without being mandated or legally sanctioned or morally correct. It worked because people used it and decided that it worked.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ language ∙ mandated ∙ legally ∙ sanctioned ∙ correct ∙ worked ∙ pronouns ∙ transgender

““He.” “She.” “They.” Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns? It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused. Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job – or even your freedom. Journalist Abigail Shrier explains how this happened and why it's become a major free speech issue.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ PragerU ∙ pronouns ∙ Abigail Shrier

From FreedomToons

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ FreedomToons ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ debunk

You seem to think I am defending the Republican Party.

Tags: Republican ∙ Democrat ∙ Donald Trump ∙ ibertarian Party ∙ government solutions ∙ last resort ∙ Keating Five ∙ John McCain ∙ Barry Goldwater

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ John McWhorter ∙ Columbia University ∙ linguist ∙ Jussie Smollett ∙ Donald Trump ∙ antiracism ∙ original sin ∙ noble victim ∙ victimhood ∙ white privilege

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ Facebook ∙ Microsoft ∙ Yaron Brook ∙ Ayn Rand Institute ∙ Orrin Hatch ∙ Janet Reno ∙ Justice Department ∙ regulation ∙ control ∙ Mark Zuckerberg ∙ First Amendment ∙ competition

The American Old West: How Hollywood Made It “Wild” to Make Money & Advance Gun Control

““Hollywood has a clever way of distorting our perspective on history, and a great example of this is Western film – a movie genre we've all come to love. Cattle rustlers, guns blazing, outlaws running loose, and vigilantes dishing out vengeance indiscriminately. These scenes have become more synonymous with the American Frontier than Winchester and their "Cartridge That Won the West." But these fictional tales have produced more than entertainment for over a century; they've also contributed to an ongoing, subtle push for gun control, all while making Hollywood millions.

Revisionist history books tell us that the “Wild West” was an anarchic period of time that was not conducive to human prosperity. Images of a Hobbesian nightmare – a life that is brutish and short – are ingrained in our consciousness thanks to decades of public schooling and violent images on the silver screen which are light on actual history and heavy on creative license.

However, individuals who believe in liberty and developing their critical thinking faculties should be skeptical of most mainstream narratives regarding history, especially American history. After all, these narratives by and large have been created by Hollywood, a legacy institution that has historically advanced politically correct content with the support of Washington in order to perpetuate the cultural status quo.

When the curtain of political correctness that's been draped over this particular period of history is pulled back, we see a much more nuanced picture of the American Frontier. In fact, research by historians such as Peter J. Hill, Richard Shenkman, Roger D. McGrath, Terry Anderson, and W. Eugene Holland shows that this period was rather indicative of a “not so wild, Wild West.”

For the purposes of this article, the Wild West will now be referred to as the Old West. This is by no means a pedantic distinction, but rather an acknowledgment of the fact that this time period was not “wild” by any stretch of the imagination when compared to other chaotic periods in human history. Indeed, the Old West had its fair share of challenges for American settlers. But as we’ll see below, crafty settlers found ways through ingenuity and mutual cooperation - all done with very limited state interference - to create a stable order for generations to come.””
     read the rest at Ammo.com

Tags: clipping ∙ guns ∙ gun control ∙ Wild West ∙ Hollywood

❝❝Coolness was never conservative.

It grew out of the jazz age and into the Las Vegas and West Coast aesthetic personified by Hefner, Sinatra, and Bruce. It was always about pushing the envelope with just a touch of rebellion. It was always about the show over substance and the deeds better left unmentioned.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ cool ∙ conservative ∙ Jazz Age ∙ Las Vegas ∙ West Coast aesthetic ∙ deeds better left unmentioned ∙ pushing the envelope ∙ touch of rebellion ∙ show over substance

❝❝Virtue isn't doing the right thing when there is no choice. Virtue is choosing and then doing it because it is the right thing.

That means the choice has to exist. It also means some people are going to make choices you don't like.

Without choice, it's not virtue. If you take the choice away, you're telling the person that you don't trust them and they aren't fully human.

Stuff happens, You can't change that. You can only try to make the World a little better than how you found it . Do you want people who can make the right choice? Or do you want ignorant children who don't know any better?❞❞

Tags: virtue ∙ choice ∙ human ∙ secret of life

Chapter One - War Is A Racket
Chapter Two - Who Makes The Profits?
Chapter Three - Who Pays The Bills?
Chapter Four - How To Smash This Racket!
Chapter Five - To Hell With War!

Chapter One - War Is A Racket

War is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people -- not those who fight and pay and die -- only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit -- fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people -- who do not profit.

Chapter Two - Who Makes The Profits?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits -- ah! that is another matter -- twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent -- the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket -- and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people -- didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump -- or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company -- and you can't have a war without nickel -- showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public -- even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought -- and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it -- so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches -- one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 -- count them if you live long enough -- was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them -- a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers -- all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment -- knapsacks and the things that go to fill them -- crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them -- and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up -- and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee -- with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator -- to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses -- that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

Chapter Three - Who Pays The Bills?

Who provides the profits -- these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them -- in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us -- the people -- got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par -- and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men -- men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement -- the young boys couldn't stand it.

That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead -- they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded -- they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too -- they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam -- on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain -- with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don't forget -- the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share -- at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

Napoleon once said,

“All men are enamored of decorations . . . they positively hunger for them.”

So by developing the Napoleonic system -- the medal business -- the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side . . . it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies . . . to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill . . . and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance -- something the employer pays for in an enlightened state -- and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all -- he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back -- when they came back from the war and couldn't find work -- at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly -- his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too -- as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

Chapter Four - How To Smash This Racket!

Well, it's a racket, all right.

A few profit -- and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation -- it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted -- to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages -- all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers -- yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders -- everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket -- that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people -- those who do the suffering and still pay the price -- make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant -- all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war -- voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms -- to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide -- and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

1. We must take the profit out of war.


2. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.


3. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

Chapter Five - To Hell With War!

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money . . . and Germany won't.

So . . . ”

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war -- even the munitions makers.

So...I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!

Tags: guest content ∙ Smedley Butler ∙ war ∙ racket ∙ WWI ∙ taxes ∙ depression ∙ soldier ∙ France ∙ Russia ∙ Italy ∙ Austria ∙ Yugoslavia ∙ Hungary ∙ Czechoslovakia ∙ Mussolini ∙ facism ∙ Hitler ∙ Germany ∙ Dollfuss ∙ Europe ∙ Orient

““The childlike moral binary: only people who hold the all correct positions merit empathy or respect.””

— Dorian Lynskey, 2:50 AM - 2 Apr 2019

Tags: Dorian Lynskey ∙ moral binary ∙ merit ∙ empathy ∙ respect

““Taxation is the fuel of war.””

— L. Neil Smith

Tags: L. Neil Smith ∙ taxation ∙ fuel ∙ war

Journalists Matt Taibbi and Aaron Maté explain how the Russiagate narrative helped Trump

““A sad irony is that the Russiagate narrative, which so many people clung to in an attempt to bring down Trump, only helped him. Actual occurrences that could have undermined Trump’s authority and damaged his reputation were ignored as much of the media and political class focused almost exclusively on a literal conspiracy theory that does not resonate with the voter base that stayed home on Election Day or the Obama-to-Trump voters. Surely, Trump has done awful things, coverage of which could get out the vote and galvanize opposition. But the Russiagate obsession perpetuated Trump’s narrative about being picked-on by a media that peddles fake news and a political elite that represents the status quo. Trump was able to come off, once again, as the outsider who takes on the establishment, which in turn persecutes him. And now that the Mueller report has said he didn’t collude with Russia, he’s celebrating.””
     — Katie Halper

Tags: clipping ∙ Katie Halper ∙ Matt Taibbi ∙ Aaron Maté ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Russiagate

❝❝People are looking for something, and some of them are not finding it in churches. Some are, but there never was a one-size-fits-all solution. Competition keeps us honest. It works for peanut butter, smart phones, and politics.

And it most certainly works for religion.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community News: Twin Cities man charged with child exploitation, SCOTUS decision, and more!

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ competition ∙ honest

““Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.””

— George Santayana

Tags: George Santayana ∙ remember ∙ past ∙ condemn ∙ repeat

““Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent can vote away the rights of the other forty nine.””

— Thomas Jefferson

Tags: Thomas Jefferson ∙ democracy ∙ mob rule

The internet is the last, best hope for freedom. And the European Union can't stand that idea.

Tags: Benjamin Franklin ∙ democracy ∙ vote ∙ wolves ∙ lamb ∙ dinner

❝❝The perception and focus of the Democrat party is that there are groups who have been disenfranchised by society at large and that it is time to "get theirs." It's not about rights, it's about the politics of victimhood. Interests aren't addressed, certainly not in a larger context of all rights for all people. It's about slights and injustices, even if those have to be manufactured.

Say what you want about Republicans (and I often say a lot), at least they don't define rights in terms of politically approved sub-groups to exploit victimhood and the divisions between people.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from That time when Democrats were responsible for low Black unemployment

Tags: maxims ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ disenfranchising ∙ rights ∙ victimhood ∙ injustice

❝❝If the mainstream media spent one tenth the effort looking at Democrat misconduct that it does looking for Republican misconduct, the nation would be far better off.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ tweeted ∙ mainstream media ∙ effort ∙ Democrat ∙ misconduct ∙ Republican ∙ nation

Tags: video ∙ Computing Forever ∙ internet ∙ European Union ∙ Article 11 ∙ Article 13 ∙ last best hope

““When disaster strikes, the national media focus on the despair and helplessness of those affected; the local media emphasize the strength and determination.””

— Christopher Harper, Flyover Country: The Real News About Floods

Tags: Christopher Harper ∙ national media ∙ local media ∙ despair ∙ helplessness ∙ strength ∙ determination ∙ flyover country

““It's not necessary—and certainly not helpful to public discourse—to take a gratuitous swipe at the other side almost every time you share your political perspective. Maybe your view isn't that great if it can't stand on its own.””

— Justin Amash (@justinamash), March 25, 2019

Tags: Justin Amash ∙ public discourse

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Venezuela ∙ economics ∙ socialism ∙ central planners

““I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me. Nothing. Zero.””

— George Carlin

Tags: George Carlin ∙ rules ∙ believe ∙ government

❝❝I'm not going to talk about Trump and his failings or if he is substantially worse than the other presidents.

What I am going to talk about (again) is that all these efforts to nail Trump show that the Federal government has too much power and that rogue elements and actors are not held accountable.

Yes, Trump's office was bugged. But that is just part of a surveillance state that has been in turbo boost since 9-11. And 9-11 isn't a good excuse, it just codified and focused secret plans that had been drifting around since the 1970s.

The issue is not Trump. The issue is not the Republicans. The issue is not the Democrats. These ongoing struggles over which party is on the side of the angels and public perception over crimes and misdeeds, that's just the distraction. While we're arguing over who did what, there are unelected and unaccountable elements in government and high finance who are taking power and freedom away from you.

No, you didn't win. The game hasn't stopped. We are still being screwed. And the next bit will make this look like robbing a kid's lemonade stand.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Federal government ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ distraction ∙ tweeted