““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

❝❝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

❝❝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 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

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

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

Tags: Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country

❝❝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

❝❝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

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

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

““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

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

““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

Tags: Google ∙ Alphabet ∙ censorship ∙ judgement ∙ approval

““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

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

Yahoo pulls the plug on fake profiles used by British police

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment

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

— NeoWayland

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

❝❝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

““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

““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

❝❝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

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

— Harriet Tubman

Tags: Harriet Tubman ∙ slaves ∙ freedom

❝❝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

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

❝❝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

GFC Lessons Not Learnt

Tags: rights ∙ goverment ∙ agency ∙ agents ∙ power ∙ power of the state

❝❝I honor truth, liberty, and the rule of law in that order.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ truth ∙ rule of law ∙ honor

Mark Penn: FBI Trump-Russia investigation shows deep state was worse than we thought

The Shutdown Is Providing Evidence Of Private Businesses Making Government Obsolete

The shutdown’s real lesson: Government has taken hostage too much of the economy

Political Nightmares Multiply for Europe Ahead of Davos

Feds Can't Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules

The Game of Pseudo-Authenticity

Supreme Court to Consider Whether Police Can Order Blood Draws from Unconscious Drivers

Public Disdain For Russia Probe Intensifies, Trump Approval Climbs — IBD/TIPP Poll

Trump's Terrible Record on Property Rights

California prohibits gender-based auto insurance: report

Democrats Failing to Control Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green Revolution

Second Thoughts On Pot

Dems fly to Puerto Rico on chartered jet, meet with lobbyists, see 'Hamilton' as shutdown drags on

US approved thousands of child bride requests

Oh My: Catholic Archdioceses Admit Wuerl Knew Of McCarrick Abuse Allegation In 2004

Philly residents defy the city’s controversial ‘soda tax’

Inside Facebook’s ‘cult-like’ workplace, where dissent is discouraged and employees pretend to be happy all the time

5 Things To Do About Our Culture’s Antagonism Against Men

Gab Promotes Bitcoin as 'Free Speech Money' to Over 850,000 Users

The Recession Will Be Unevenly Distributed

How Facebook Borrows From the NSA Playbook

5 reasons why there’s still no end to the shutdown

The only acceptable answer: “None of your f(ornicating) business!”

Who gave National Review the power to excommunicate?

Employee at Ford Office Fired After Disagreeing With Transgender Post

Majority Preservation Act

Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize

This Reporter Took a Deep Look Into the Science of Smoking Pot. What He Found Is Scary.

Carriers Swore They'd Stop Selling Location Data. Will They Ever?

Cory Doctorow: Disruption for Thee, But Not for Me

Tags: mobile carriers ∙ Nobel Prize ∙ Barack Obama ∙ gun control ∙ NSA ∙ recession ∙ Gab ∙ bitcoin ∙ Facebook ∙ war against men ∙ Catholic Church ∙ Philadelphia ∙ soda tax ∙ Hispanic Caucus ∙ Puerto Rico ∙ Democrats ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ cannabis ∙ Donald Trump ∙ victimhood ∙ privacy ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ deep state ∙ RussiaGate ∙ FBI ∙ government shutdown ∙ Europe ∙ Davos

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: ICE ∙ sex offenders ∙ homicide ∙ Mike Lee ∙ Congress ∙ public lands ∙ Utah ∙ national monuments ∙ Barack Obama ∙ email probe ∙ Matthew Whitaker ∙ recuse ∙ House of Representatives ∙ border security ∙ PewDiePie ∙ internet ∙ Senate ∙ Democrats ∙ Donald Trump ∙ border wall ∙ UK ∙ Brexit ∙ EU ∙ Spaniish Civil War ∙ anarchists ∙ private property ∙ individual rights ∙ eminent domain ∙ small business ∙ Al Gore ∙ green energy ∙ gamble

“Dozens of news outlets reported that America has the most mass shooters in the world. Many say that shows America needs more gun control.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ gun control ∙ John Stossel ∙ mass shootings ∙ media

LGBT Splinter Group From Migrant Caravan Is The 1st To Arrive In Tijuana

Tags: Crux Files ∙ freedom ∙ mistake ∙ consequences ∙ government ∙ force ∙ prove himself ∙ choice & consequence ∙ excuse

“Taylor Woolrich told her story yesterday at the annual conference of Students for Concealed Carry…”

I despise guns. I really do.

But I approve of this message.

No matter how I feel about guns, I can't help but notice that the people who obey the gun laws are not the ones we have to worry about. I can't help but notice that the folks making the most noise about gun control are the same ones I wouldn't trust to keep quiet about what anything. And I can't help but notice that the officials, agents, and policemen who proclaim that gun control is absolutely necessary to public safety are the same ones who don't want dash cams or the public recording them on cellphones.

Yes, I approve of this message.

---

*nods*

I used to be very anti-gun. Not quite out there carrying a sign, but close. Then someone pointed out Cramer’s The Racist Roots of Gun Control and I started looking into it and thinking hard. It was the last bit of libertarianism that I accepted, and the one that was most difficult.

The first time I ever did the reluctant advocate bit was in defense of concealed carry.

---

That's what started me questioning, but it wasn't where my studies stopped. I finally came up with questions I couldn't answer.

Why should someone who carries a gun decide if other people are allowed to carry? Why does his power trump their rights?

The answer is very simple. In a free society there is no reason.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ gun control ∙ Taylor Woolrich ∙ Students for Concealed Carry

❝❝There's also climate change. Some treat it very much as a religious issue, right down to attacking dissenters as heretics. Using the law to compel belief is wrong.

After all, if it is Divine Will, how can mere humans dare question it? Which gives non serviam some very interesting implications. By some interpretations, the absolute demands of monotheism may be less about the Divine and more about the political power of princes, potentates, and priests.

It's easy to laugh at those crazy monotheists until you see some demands of the RadFems, the trans activists, the environmental groups, the redistributionists, and anti-hate speech types. Always, Always, ALWAYS there is a Grand Cause that demands total submission and absolutely no denial "for the greater good."

Anytime you see "thou shalt not dissent," it should be a flashing red strobe and a triple siren.

---

Kosher certification for restaurants is one private alternative for food safety that has worked. One author, L. Neil Smith, suggested in one of his novels that insurance companies would do a better job with driver's licenses because they are liable if something happens. Obviously these are not the only possibilities. But with government, we end up with only one Official Solution® allowed.

Personally I prefer the free market and competition. And by free market, I mean no government to pick winners or losers, and no government to give advantages over others. Just voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. Many companies especially international ones owe their competitive advantages to special privileges from governments and/or government regulation and control.

The only times I think government should intervene is to protect life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, the only role I see for government is enforcing contracts and agreements, but even that could be done privately.

But that is just me.

I do believe that Meddling in Other's Lives For Their Own Good is one of the great evils unleashed on humanity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ religious ∙ beliefs ∙ dissent ∙ Divine Will ∙ non serviam ∙ mere unbelievers ∙ monotheism ∙ absolute ∙ princes ∙ potentates ∙ priests ∙ RadFem ∙ trans activists ∙ environmental crusade ∙ redistribute wealth ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ kosher ceritificaiton ∙ insurance companies ∙ driver's license ∙ food safety ∙ competition ∙ government ∙ winners or losers ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults ∙ special privileges ∙ government regulation ∙ life ∙ liberty ∙ property ∙ enforce contracts ∙ meddle ∙ for your own good

But none of that is a reason to impeach him.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ like ∙ trust ∙ economics ∙ tariffs ∙ exaggerations ∙ spending ∙ threatening reporters ∙ crassness ∙ popularism ∙ stock market ∙ Instability ∙ impeach ∙ 2016 election ∙ none of the above ∙ hexes ∙ publicity ∙ deep state ∙ The Octopus ∙ goverment ∙ disrupt ∙ status quo ∙ institutions ∙ context for change ∙ politicos

❝❝My idea for campaign finance reform.

You can't contribute to a campaign unless you reside in the area affected by the campaign. No one from Phoenix could contribute to a city council election in Tucson, no one from California could contribute to a proposition in Nevada, and so on.

No anonymous contributions. A current public list of all contributions must be maintained.

Any unused funds must be returned proportionally to all contributors or to a specified charity. If someone contributed .01% of the campaign's funding, then they would receive .01% of any monies left over.

Violating any of these rules would render a candidate legally unable to serve in any public office until the end of term for the office they ran for. If they ran for Senate, violation would make them ineligible for six years. In the case of a ballot proposition, the election would be voided and must be held again.

---

Money is not speech. No matter what the USSC says.

If they want to spend money, they can do so in their own home. If they want to speak against someone, they can do that where ever and when ever. But someone in Idaho doesn't have to live with the aftermath of an election in Illinois.

---

It's part of my SUPER SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY THE POLITICAL PARTIES.

Don't tell anyone.

---

People forget that the party system wasn't created by the Constitution. Yet they essentially control the nomination process. Take the cash flow and war chests and political action groups away and the parties collapse.

All without arguing over if cash is free speech.

Oh, and banning corporate campaign contributions. And union contributions. And political "matching funds."

*grins*

---

Money isn't speech any more than money is press. Money is a tool, a way of keeping score, and power, but it is not speech.

If money was really speech, there would be no legal limit to campaign donations.

If someone has more money, does that mean they have a bigger right of free speech or a bigger right of the press? If that is the case, we might as well do away with elections and just hold auctions.

It's telling that prior to campaign finance "reform," no one thought otherwise. It's also telling that the CFR was used to restrict speech.

Just because the law says something doesn't mean it's so. I'm still convinced that anyone born with a penis is a male.

Under my proposal, there are two restrictions on donating money. You have to be a voter and you have to reside in the area affected by the election. These are the two restrictions that every other proposed form of campaign finance reform tries to do away with.❞❞

Tags: campaign finance reform ∙ contributions ∙ Phoenix ∙ Tucson ∙ California ∙ Nevada ∙ charity

The FedGovs.

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ CGP Grey ∙ borders ∙ Statue of Liberty ∙ New York ∙ New Jersey

❝❝Understand that I am still torn on the subject.

But not every pregnancy results in live birth, even without abortions. Not every pregnancy comes to term.

Under those circumstances, it's hard to call abortion murder or killing babies.

---

I saw it. I also was treated to a film series in high school called Whatever Happened to the Human Race?

I come from a long line of farming stock. Death happens. It's not pretty. But it's a part of life.

Incidentally, the big reason why the US has a higher infant mortality rate than many other nations is because in other nations babies aren't always counted as "alive" until they've gotten through the first year or so.

There are a great many things that our country does that are not civilized. I'm pretty sure that if I were deciding what is and is not acceptable to society, there would be complaints. Public nudity wouldn't go over well. Neither would removing body parts from those who abuse children.

All that being said, if abortions were not government subsidized, I suspect there would be fewer. I think that is a more workable solution than banning abortions outright.

---

Well, that depends. For the most part, yes.

But let's acknowledge that is an artificial distinction. For example, my mother, stepsibs, and I in accordance with my stepdad's wishes from years before decided not to extend his life. Those last couple of years, he was on a feeding tube and incapable of communicating. Years before that, he had lost the ability to understand what was going on around him.

So yes, it was a death from willful causes. But at that point, what kind of life was it?

On another board, I've had talks with people with terminal illnesses who were considering assisted suicide.There were also surviving family members of people who had done that. What kind of life was it? Would you want someone to live with pain and having their body fall apart?

This is not a clear issue. We should accept that if nothing else. People die. Babies die. How much do we mourn? How much do we blame?

There's no absolute here. We should stop pretending that there is.

---

It is a distinction, but I am not convinced it has bearing. It's a while before a baby has awareness of self and even longer before the beginning of language.

I agree it's a fuzzy area and that there are many moral questions that can't be easily answered.

It gets even more complicated when considering the implications. If we accept the sense of self as the defining point of where killing is and is not ethical, what does that say about our companion animals? Or our food animals?

---

I'm not trying to justify abortion. I'm saying it's not easy to justify outlawing abortion and it raises certain moral issues.

The sense of self is different from perception. Humans develop a sense of self as we mature. We can also lose that sense of self.

---

Admittedly it is a fuzzy concept and psychologists argue over it. At it's most basic, it's a recognizing the distinction between "I" and "Other." It's a mental framework that probably arises from brain structure. It's the key to individuality.

As a libertarian, I don't give "society" an ethical justification to do squat. That includes ending lives and mandating clothes in public.

Here's the thing, if we do recognize rights, the only workable way is to make those rights individual rights. Not granted because of some label or gifted by government. You have rights because you are an individual and you share those rights with other individuals.

At that point, we're really defining "personhood" by individuality. That means you must be functionally an individual and accept that others are individual too.

Without individuality, we're hunks of flesh with automatic responses. With individuality,we can choose.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ individual ∙ choose ∙ Other ∙ rights ∙ terminal illness ∙ society ∙ justification ∙ infant mortality ∙ awareness of self

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Zama Rripa ∙ libertarian ∙ Wendy McElroy

““Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.””
     — Margaret Mead

Tags: Margaret Mead ∙ doubt ∙ group ∙ thoughtful ∙ committed ∙ citizens ∙ change ∙ World

Will they tolerate similar "resistance" from conservatives?

Tags: vote ∙ bad choices ∙ listen ∙ do something ∙ growing government ∙ less liberty ∙ no ability to change ∙ problem.

Will they tolerate similar "resistance" from conservatives?

Tags: progressives ∙ conservatives ∙ alt-right ∙ Democrat ∙ leaders ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ election ∙ 2000 ∙ 9-11 ∙ flyover country ∙ repressed ∙ campaign finance reform ∙ Bush League ∙ gun control ∙ political correctness ∙ gender issues ∙ global warming ∙ Portland ∙ rule of law ∙ KYFHO ∙ neighbors

❝❝ahem

Government Is Not Your Friend.

When government acts, there will always Always ALWAYS be less liberty afterwards.

Do we really want politicos and technocrats deciding what is and is not available based on a morality that was defined between the two AM sex party and the prayer breakfast?

==>Obligatory libertarian rant over. We now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.<==❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government is not your friend ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ 2 AM sex party ∙ prayer breakfast

❝❝And then 9-11 happened. That would have destroyed most other nations. It just pissed us off. By October 1st, 2001, Americans were ready to take the world apart and put it back together in our own image. And we almost set out to do exactly that and be damned with the consequences.

But no, we had to be multi-lateral and multi-national and multi-phasic and multi-tasking and multi-cultural and multi-apologetic.

Freedom and liberty have always been our beacons. That's when Americans are at our best. That's when we change the world for the better.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, Why does your enlightenment demand that I sacrifice?

Tags: maxims ∙ 9-11 ∙ Americans ∙ take the world apart ∙ multi-lateral ∙ multi-national ∙ multi-phasic ∙ multi-tasking ∙ multi-cultural ∙ multi-apologetic

❝❝That is a phenomenally inaccurate and simplistic view.

---

"Run by blacks…"

They are run by Democrats who have spent the last 50+ years telling minority groups that they are victims and don't have to be responsible.

Gods, the absolute last last thing you should do is blame skin color.

Do you want to make things worse?

---

Of course you're blaming skin color.

Those "heritable characteristics" vanish when you start adjusting for quality of education, early childhood environment, and family support.

Next time read the disclaimers and qualitifications qualifications.

---

Yes, yes they do. Check the studies again. Better yet, follow it to the inevitable conclusion. If the "heritable characteristics" exist and are not modified by environmental factors, then by your logic "blacks" are inherently inferior.

Think about that very carefully.

---

The fact that you are relying on IQ tells me quite a bit.

The IQ tests are culturally biased. What's more, studies from the late 1970s forward have shown that the tests are sub-culturally biased. Those scores are significantly linked to quality of education, early childhood environment, and family support.

Yes, those things I mentioned earlier.

What's more, there's evidence of an inner-city sub-culture that is adamantly against doing well in school or on tests.

---

Look, here's the problem.

You're defining people by skin color, no matter what their individual accomplishments.

Benjamin Banneker, Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Daniel Hale Williams , Booker T. Washington, James West, John J. Jasper, Daniel "Chappie" James Jr., Thomas Sowell, Huey P. Newton, Carter G. Woodson, W. E. B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, those are just some of the remarkable American men I remember off the top of my head.

---

Those averages only matter if you've allowed for all other factors.

For example, how many sub-Sararan sub-Saharan nations have a free market based economy? How many recognize the rights of the individual?

I already told you a third theory. There are significant cultural and environmental differences. What's more, put any skin color in unfavorable circumstances and watch how fast the "average" drops.

---

Unless a government recognizes & defends individual rights, corruption follows as surely as night follows day.

Those white South Africans you mention had special privilege and exploited people because they had the power to do so. When things changed, there was no living memory of anything except special privileges. The corruption stayed and the exploited targets changed.

A version of the same problem is happening in those Democrat controlled cities that you incorrectly insist on labeling "black run." Recognized rights have long given way to special privilege, and no one remembers anything else.

---

I didn't say anything about it not being their fault. I specifically said Democrats "have spent the last 50+ years telling minority groups that they are victims and don't have to be responsible."

Not so long ago, the Republican idea of race relations was to get out of the way and tell people to take responsibility. That's no longer the case.

I don't care about blame. I just care about fixing the problem. And you are making things worse.

You're making the Democrat case for them. You're saying that "blacks" will fail if left to themselves.

---

You mean other than the examples I gave you?

If you are interested in statistics, try the upward mobility of "blacks" between 1900 and 1960, before government interfered. The welfare statistics and the rise of single mother families are particularly telling. These have been well documented.

On the whole, two parent households do better over time. When the immediate cost of having children is reduced by government intervention, then a single parent household is less likely to move up the economic ladder.

---

I told you some of what was necessary for a society's success. Recognition and protection of individual rights. A free market economy. Those things are rare.

Those things are also not dependent on skin color.

I don't recognize "black" societies, I recognize human societies. Almost every single time when someone talks about "black" societies or "black"nations or "black" cities, it's about racism.

There's one race and it's human.

---

I said no such thing.

I talked about political systems designed to exploit victimhood and grant privilege.

That has almost nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with denying rights.

---

People designed those systems. Generations of people over centuries, trading, interacting, arguing, fighting, failing, and trying again. It wasn't because of one skin color even if you could define "white."

---

Because I said that people designed the systems, for good or ill?

Because I pointed out that it took generations?

Because I pointed out that you can't define "white" anymore than you can define "black?"

You lost this one the second you used skin color as a substitute for individual merit.

---

You haven't managed to identify any significant differences that aren't environmental in nature.

Instead, you keep focusing on skin color, a poor indicator under the best of circumstances.

There are hundreds of other factors, starting with how many parents the child has and if the child is raised in a loving environment. That doesn't even include the social factors I've already touched on.

As long as you focus on skin color, you're just perpetuating the problems.

The only way the question is reduced to a binary condition is by focusing on insignificant measurements such as skin color.

---

We've already established that IQ is culturally biased. There are also strong indications that IQ is sub-culturally biased as well. That means that part of what IQ measures is cultural conformity.

That's assuming that IQ is a relevant measure of intelligence to begin with. There are theories that one measurement of intelligence isn't nearly enough.

Like it or not, you have to allow for environmental and cultural factors in IQ scores.

---

Me and about two thirds of the researchers studying the possibility.

I suggest you do a web search for IQ cultural bias.

---

First, it's not the "warrior gene." A variant is popularly (and inaccurately) referred to as the "warrior gene." Technically the variant produces less MAMO MAOA .

Second, the evidences seems to show that the people with a low level of MAMO MAOA show higher levels of aggression when faced with social stressors such as ostracism, exclusion, or overwhelming loss.

You know, environmental factors.

ETA: Sorry about that, spell check fixed something I didn't want fixed.

---

With environmental factors, yes.

Would you like a list of genetic variations that are activated by environmental stressors?

---

I don't lie.

You keep stressing differences that derive from environmental factors.

Yet you keep blaming skin color.

---

Remember when I mentioned "family support?" Have you accounted for the incredible cultural pressure to succeed at schools and testing?

---

Yep, Obama was all about skin color. And his solutions worked out just so well for everyone, right?

There's a line I've been throwing around for a couple years now.

❝There were so many patting themselves on the back and proud that a black man had been elected President that no one bothered to ask if a good man had been elected President.❞

---

The politics are a much bigger part of the problem than the skin color.

It's the politics I blame.

---

And there's your problem.

You think it's about America.

It's about freedom.

---

Who said anything about pretending it's not there?

I'm disputing why it is there.

---

Actually I did. I talked briefly about incentivizing single parenthood and telling minorities that they are perpetual victims and how they don't have to take responsibility.

---

No, it wasn't the same environment.

I specified "telling minorities."

Politics are bad enough, but the politics are of victimhood are just despicable.

---

Because they don't have the same incentives.

Do you have any idea how much has been written and spoken about this over the last sixty years?

You might start with Goldwater's objections to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

---

I believe they are indoctrinated to believe that they could only be victims no matter what.

---

Talked with more than a few. Slept with a couple.

I'm a bilagáana born on the res. I grew up next to the Diné, the Hopi, and the Havasupai. Spent a lot of time in Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego, and Albuquerque.

Still want to lecture me on the "races?"

---

Gods, you really are so ignorant that you can't be bothered to do a web search.

Roughly translated, bilagáana means "white man." There's more to it than that, especially for one born on the reservation. I'm what happens when Louisiana farming stock takes root in the Four Corners region.

---

Check again.

I never denied cultural differences, I just pointed out that they alone don't determine IQ or aggression.

---

I don't think I've done it in this thread, but I have pointed out that there is one race and it's human.

"Peoples" is a completely different concept and doesn't usually rest on minor genetic differences. The term is slightly more accurate than tribes.

Go back and reread what I wrote on this thread. I started by pointing out that what was being passed off as racial and genetic differences were actually due to environmental and cultural factors.

---

Ah, someone is making the right points.

First, IQ is not an objective measurement. One of my favorite examples is the Diné, their culture doesn't recognize time and distance as linear. With the possibility of multiple intelligences, things get more complicated. Gross motor coordination doesn't translate to spatial mathematical. Yes, I know the theory has problems like leaving out fine motor control, but this isn't the place.

We've not defined intelligence very well. There's a difference between following a recipe and walking in a kitchen just to whip up amazing food. IQ tests look for proven solutions, not for that creative spark. Sometimes that mostly works, sometimes not.

One set of parents can produce a musical genius, a good accountant, and a total slacker. It's impossible to say if a specific genetic line might produce. We know from domesticated animals that some traits will probably breed true, but we have to allow for environment and chance. We can't say that this family always produces good Rotarians and never any gamers. We can't say that every puppy from that Labrador will be good with kids. If you expand it to a group, the uncertainty grows too.

---

Interesting. You get to keep your preconceptions but I have to give mine up.

Okay, let's go back to basics. Part of science is eliminating variables.

The people we're comparing, are they on the same economic level? Did they have the same number of parents? Did they attend the same or comparable schools? Are they married? Do they have the same number of kids? Is their debt level the same? Is their education level the same? Do they live in the same or comparable neighborhoods?

We know that every single one of these environmental factors can influence someone's mental abilities, their tastes, their chosen activities, and their obligations.

And these are just the big ones.

Otherwise you're comparing apples from last year to next year's bananas. There's no way to establish a baseline.

There's no real comparison until you can account for most of the major variables.

---

I'm telling you (again) that until you can account for environmental differences, your measurements are useless.

There's a difference between a Walmart special and a finely made bookshelf. You can't just say that the one that is forty-one inches wide is better than the thirty-five inch one. You don't have enough information to judge.

---

It's a trick question.

It presupposes that there aren't any other variables that matter.

At the very least, acknowledge that the quality of schools makes a difference.

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!

Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!

D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?

Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
     — My Cousin Vinny

---

From my second response to you on this thread, I've pointed out again and again that you can not eliminate cultural and environmental factors.

The differences that you chose to highlight directly resulted in part from the culture and environment.

These are facts that we know and can easily be verified through a web search.

Children from single parent households tend to do worse at school and hold lower paying jobs.

Children from abusive households tend to do worse at school and hold lower paying jobs.

Single parent households tend to stay at lower income levels.

Some schools fail so much that most of their students can't read, write, or do basic math.

If children don't have enough to eat, they don't do well in school.

If people don't have shelter, they tend to have more health problems.

How much did environment and culture play a part? There is no way to know unless you can eliminate variables.

There's no comparison unless you can account for most of the major variables. This is true in science. This is true in statistics. This is true in life.

Your question makes no sense because there can be no comparison.

---

But you haven't presented evidence.

You've gone out of your way to dismiss the very idea that the culture and environment can have any possible influence on the differences you chose to highlight.

All you've done is lay out a premise that presupposes that no other factors can change what you choose to measure.

It's not science. It's not statistics. It's not even logically verifiable.

It's just prejudice.

---

You don't have evidence. You have observation, but you haven't shown cause or correlation because you have not allowed for environmental and cultural factors.

It's not even a matter of "interpretation." You've deliberately chosen one measurement and claimed that it defines the whole discussion. Can you say selection bias?

---

You can put tomato seeds in a salt shaker for nine months. That doesn't mean you'll be harvesting.

---

But I don't blame skin color at all. That's when I talk about this at all. Most people don't want to deal with uncomfortable truths.

I talk about politics, history, and the lies of government. Also basic economics and self-ownership.

---

Self-ownership and responsibility are a big part of what I write and talk about.

I also talk about strategy that exploits the politics of victimhood. I point out that the people who don't accept those lies from politicos and technocrats do better over time. Usually better than their parents. Which used to be a measurement of success in this nation.

A significant number of politicos (easily more than half) use the message that people are victims and their friend, the government, can help.

I tell people that government is not your friend, no matter how much the politicos say that it is.

That's not making excuses. That's showing that most politicos want problems they can stage manage. The politicos can't do that by solving problems.

---

It's a loaded question.

The premise is insufficient.

---

Neighbor, you're telling me that I am dealing in absolutes when I just listed seven major variables that we know affect intelligence and ability. These variables change everybody no matter what their skin color, nationality, sex, or ice cream preference.

---

I can stop you with nothing more than a few words.

Think about it. You're taking offense at what I write on a website when all I am really saying is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…"

You would deny that?

---

I'm not defending today's mess.

I've written against it.

But (and this is the important bit), you're still defining people by skin color instead of what they are individually.

There's a phrase about "content of their character" that comes to mind.

---

I know, you keep defining people by skin color.

---

Tell me, what nationality are "blacks?"

If a "Chinese" has been granted American citizenship, when does he stop being "Chinese?" Three seconds after? Three generations? When he changes his name to Jones?

If Jesus Fernandez was born in Michigan and barely speaks Spanish, is he "Mexican?"

Or American?

---

I didn't say anything about stopping the Left with words.

I said I could stop you.

And I have.

---

Think you so?

Look at what's happened.

I've held my own against you and your "friend." Along the way, we've discussed history, psychology, morality, biology, and ethics. We've done it in real time for a few hours, and right now you are focused on taking me down, not in proving that "blacks" are inferior.

And all you can do is tell me that I don't deserve my citizenship.

You got stopped.

---

"The fact that blacks are not us."

Pretty sure my neighbors would disagree. Pretty sure your neighbors would too.

---

"Wait until your neighbors are Hindus, Muslims, Mexicans, or Asians."

Um, they are.

---

I could ask my across-the-street neighbor, but I'm pretty sure she's happy with her husband. I don't know their kids that well.

---

Because they are us.

The commonalities outweigh the differences.

These barriers, these labels that people like you keep using, they separate us. The labels keep us apart.

❝Those are the same stars, and that is the same moon, that look down upon your brothers and sisters, and which they see as they look up to them, though they are ever so far away from us, and each other.❞
     — Sojourner Truth

---

The Hopi are surrounded by all sides by the Diné. Can you tell me the genetic differences between the Hopi and the Diné? Good luck, because they've been intermarrying for a long time.

So what are their national characteristics?

As I said, I'm an American. I'm a mix. Part of my ancestry is Irish, part of it is English, part of it is Creole, part of it is German, part of it is Russian, and there's probably stuff on both sides of the bed that isn't officially acknowledged.

What are my national genetic characteristics?

I'm pretty sure I could father a child with any fertile human female if we tried hard enough. That's sort of how the species works.

And that's the important thing. We're one species, one "race." Throw us together and those distinctions fade. We get down and funky. We rut. We mix our genes.

It doesn't stop there. Ideas mix too. We argue with each other. We try to one up each other. We try. We look at what the other guy is doing. We borrow what works and tweak it a bit.

Synchronicity and syncretism happen, no matter how much you want "purity."

---

I'm not trying to change the labels.

I'm pointing out the truths.

Those labels are controlling your life.

---

"Truth and lies don't miscegenate."

Miscegenation has nothing to do with truth and lies and everything to do with sex and children.

Truth is subject to change. There was a time when people thought the speed of light was infinite. Now we know it's about 186,000 miles per second. In a vacuum. Put it through an atmosphere or water and it's something else.

We're human. That humanity matters more than any "racial" difference. It's why there are children of "mixed race." As time and people go on, the differences fade.

Until we meet a new population and it starts all over again.

I don't lie. I serve veritas.❞❞

Tags: Democrats ∙ minorities ∙ victims ∙ responsibility ∙ skin color ∙ cyberscare ∙ heritable characteristics ∙ MAOA ∙ cultural differences ∙ intelligence ∙ environment ∙ IQ ∙ culturally biased ∙ education ∙ family ∙ individual rights ∙ schools ∙ Republican ∙ two parent households ∙ single mother households ∙ human ∙ race ∙ racial discrimination ∙ racial identity

❝❝Ever notice when someone picks a scapegoat, it's because they think the scapegoat can't fight back?

---

I agree with you that politics is a source of great evil in the World.

I disagree that the Trump and the Republicans are the cause. Or even most of the cause.

One annoying thing about politics is that people are willing to overlook the misconduct of "their" side even while slinging wild accusations against the Enemy. The accusations may or may not be accurate. But you can count on the Enemy not being quite the Ultimate Horror Unleashed on Mankind. And you can count that your side is not quite the paragon of virtue and self-sacrifice that they claim.

Politics is about controlling the other. Never you, always the other. When government is involved politics is about control backed by force.

Politicians are never on your side. Even as they stand wrapped in the flag clutching holy writ promising that they will be your bestest friend ever no matter what.

---

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Obama used the IRS and Justice Department against his enemies, among other things. And the Democrats looked the other way.

Rather than get into a long and pointless discussion of who did what worse, I want to point out something that most people overlook.

The politicos NEED you to blame the other party and never question the wisdom of your party's decisions. It's always the other party that is doing things Too Terrible and always your own party that promises to Save The Day. When you buy into that, you perpetuate the system. You're always going to be victimized and you're never ever going to be saved. If you were saved, you'd have no reason to vote the party line.

---

I know I have my political critics on this site, but believe me when I tell you that there are conservatives who are just as threatened by the Democrat leadership as you are by Trump.

Too often today, people make excuses for what their side does by trotting out the disasters from the other side.

I want less government. I think government is a terrible danger to liberty. I think politicos and technocrats complicate things because they don't want you asking questions and they don't want you changing the status quo. They don't want you understanding what they do.

So when I see someone insisting that this flavor of politico is slightly less objectionable, I tell them they are wrong.

---

Accurate, as far as it goes.

*sighs* Look, I know that other pagans think I am simplistic and partisan when it comes to politics. And believe me, I realize how ironic it is for me to denounce mixing paganism with politics while having a political blog called Pagan Vigil.

Politics is one of my darker passions. I'm better at it than any amateur has any right to be. I understand the temptations and lusts because those are my temptations, my lusts, but for a bit of discipline and some promises I made. There's a line from Doctor Who, “Good men don’t need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.” These days I try to use my abilities and urges in a good cause. Mostly I succeed.

I've said that politics is about controlling the other. It's literally "power over." All the processes, all the carefully defined rules to protect democracy, all the blame exists SOLEY to keep people from looking too carefully at "the sausage being made." To keep people from asking how much freedom they are "supposed" to sacrifice for "the Greater Good." To keep them from asking themselves why expecting the other guy to sacrifice and compromise is GOOD but they themselves aren't supposed to sacrifice and compromise. To keep them from accepting that POWER OVER for their principles just might not be as as effective as power with based on things we all share.

Smashing the opposition just makes more pieces that can regrow.❞❞

Tags: scapegoating ∙ World ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Republicans ∙ control ∙ politicos ∙ Barack Obama ∙ IRS ∙ Justice Department ∙ party politics ∙ Democrats ∙ government ∙ technocrats ∙ political flavor ∙ pagans ∙ simplistic ∙ partisan ∙ blog ∙ darker passions ∙ temptation ∙ lust ∙ amateur ∙ discipline ∙ promises ∙ Doctor Who ∙ power with vs power over

❝❝The Constitution and the Bill of Rights limit government, not people.

The way I see it, you are free to say and do as you want SO LONG AS you accept responsibility and the consequences. Anyone who promises you freedom from that is lying.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: Constitution ∙ Bill of Rights ∙ people ∙ responsibility ∙ consequences ∙ lying

❝❝There was a late night bull session I attended. One very drunk person announced, very authoritatively, "Socialism is jealousy."

Then she passed out.

She may have had a point.

---

I'll go you one farther. There are studies that show primates have a strong sense of fairness. Some other studies show the fairness idea is linked to play in wolves and coyotes. I've seen speculation but no mention of studies that the idea exists in elephants as well. Taken together, these may indicate that it is part of the biology, at least for social animals.

---

I'd say it relies on control and orientation in time. Given that it's extremely difficult to control other's behavior except through force, someone who is past-orientated will choose coercion and false signals. Especially if their behavior was controlled in the past.

Future orientation and risk taking are more likely to depend on cooperation. Especially if one doesn't have the resources to pull off the future alone.

Going forward, power with beats power over. But someone stuck in the past won't see that. As for the "leaders," they're gaming the system and don't practice what they preach. "But just do as I say, don't do as I do," as the old Genesis song says.

---

❝Everyone who lives in America is a socialist to some degree.❞

True. But did they choose, or was it chosen for them "for the greater good?" In many cases before they were born? Did they ever have an alternative choice? Were they even allowed to think about it?

That's how socialism works. It's always involuntary except for those calling the shots.

❝It’s just that the rank and file among us don’t have $12 billion to buy votes from farmers we’ve screwed over.❞

If he had bought votes, the farmers wouldn't be screwed, would they? You've moved beyond mixing metaphors here, you're mixing conspiracy theories.

---

Your premise about vote buying is wrong. There's plenty to criticize about Trump's tariff strategy (which I've done), but there was no vote buying. That's the problem with most of the accusations against Trump. The loudest people ignore what Trump has done and blame him for things he hasn't done. You can't buy votes after the fact. And you keep overlooking all the other people adversely affected by the tariffs.

I used the word choosing because we are supposed to live in a representative government. Socialism removes choice. Socialism removes freedom. Socialism removes prosperity. The only reason why the United States works economically is because of the partial free market. The free market works. The free market works better than anything else in history. The only reason Americans can afford even partial socialism is because of the abundance produced by the free market.

So are Americans socialist? Yes, but not from choice. Someone had to do it to them. Someone had to lie to them about what they could get. Someone else had to pay the bills. Would Americans choose socialist programs? I don't think they would if they understood the costs.

I didn't claim you wrote anything about choice. I asked about choice. That's not words in your mouth, that's a question you don't want to answer.❞❞

Tags: sociaism ∙ choice ∙ primates ∙ fairness ∙ prosperity ∙ freedom ∙ wolves ∙ coyotes ∙ elephants ∙ biology ∙ control ∙ orientation in time ∙ coercion ∙ false signals ∙ future ∙ past ∙ power with vs power over ∙ involuntary ∙ bought votes

❝❝Liberty demands more than just deciding who is "in charge." If government means electing people who are kinda-sorta on your side on alternate Thursdays when there's no rain, what's the point?❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ election ∙ kinda-sorta ∙ alternate Thursdays ∙ no rain ∙ goverment ∙ tweeted

I've never gotten a straight answer.

Tags: maxims ∙ live & let live

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ ReasonTV ∙ FOSTA ∙ SESTA ∙ online freedom

Tags: goverment ∙ rule of law ∙ Republican ∙ religious right ∙ progressives ∙ major parties ∙ politicos ∙ rescue ∙ false equivalence ∙ Their Cause Is Just ∙ expand ∙ government power ∙ increases taxes ∙ increased costs ∙ more laws ∙ more regulations

Tags: Original Vigil

Tags: Hernando de Soto ∙ clear title

When the press shows that it can't be trusted with even some truths, why should the press be trusted?

Tags: rights ∙ privilege ∙ power ∙ goverment

Samuel Adams delivered this speech from the steps of the State House in Philadelphia on August 1, 1776. This was the day before the famous parchment copy of the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Tags: Samuel Adams ∙ 1776 ∙ forefathers ∙ religion ∙ England ∙ America ∙ France ∙ Great Britain ∙ government ∙ Declaration of Independence

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ The Unsilent Minority ∙ #WalkAway ∙ SJW ∙ Democrat party ∙ progressives ∙ liberals ∙ groupthink ∙ victimhood

❝❝I realize that this is going against the narrative, but the immigration mess predated Trump. The difference is that Trump has decided to mostly enforce the law while Obama decided to sometimes not. The Obama administration is on record telling Congress that it was a lousy law.

Democrats are remarkable at ignoring bad law if a Democrat is President.

If you don't like the law, change it. Don't go selectively protesting because a government functionary does their job. That's virtue signaling.

Where were the protests before Tump was elected?

---

It's bad law. It was abused before Trump decided to run and the only reason it's getting all the attention now is because a Republican is in office. This is literally being sold as evil Trump while almost no progressives are talking about changing or revoking the law. It's propaganda telling people that if a nice Democrat is in office, they won't have to worry about that bad old law because the Democrat President will have the moral courage to ignore it.

“Family separation was a frontline issue for immigration activists for the last decade or more. They warned of a generation of orphans scarred by the loss of their parents. They cautioned that Obama expanded deportation forces on his own to a degree that would be horribly exploited by a Republican president. (At the time, they were worried about Mitt Romney.)

The Obama administration conceded as much on the issue of separation in 2011, when Cecilia Muñoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, told PBS, “Even if the [immigration] law is executed with perfection, there will be parents separated from their children.”

Many liberals contend Obama never ripped babies from the arms of screaming parents. They should ask, for example, the over 150,000 immigrant children separated from their parents due to detention and deportation proceedings in 2012 if that’s true. Or the over 500,000 immigrant children, who experienced separation between 1998 and that year.”
➢ Separation Of Immigrant Families Was Part Of Deportation Under Obama—Now Trump Is Expanding The Practice

---

Again, it's bad law. Trump can only do what he has done because of laws on the books for years.

It's not just one law. We keep trying to fix the problem with more law which creates more problems which need more law.

---

Except it is the law.

Would you have government ignore the law if the politicos didn't think it was moral? Remember we have an AG who was spouting Bible quotes to justify his immorality.

If the law is wrong, it should be changed. Preferably removed. Anything else puts us at the whim of the politicos and bureaucrats. If we are to have freedom and protection by law, then the rule of law must be uniform. No enforcing it when this man is in office and ignoring it when that woman is in office.

I know you don't like what is happening and you blame Trump. But it it is the law. Selective enforcement just means the threat of tyranny is always there.

Change the law.❞❞

Tags: immigration reform ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Barack Obama

❝❝I don't have an easy answer. I do think a nation is obligated to protect it's borders and I do think it should be able to expel immigrants or visitors who break the law. I do think that part of the problem are government benefits, I think that anyone who comes here should be able to pay their own way. Beyond that… *shrugs*❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ immigration ∙ borders ∙ break the law ∙ government benefits ∙ pay your own way

❝❝You are perfectly capable of making your own decisions. That is your right, that is what makes you human, and fuck all to anyone who tells you different.

KYFHO now and forever. The only protection you should get is the certainty that NO ONE ELSE can use government to control you.

But, if you expect that right for yourself, you’d better damn well defend if for others. Even if you don’t like them. Even if you don’t trust them. Especially if you don’t trust them. Otherwise you will lose your choice.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ KYFHO ∙ human ∙ right ∙ choice & consequence ∙ goverment ∙ other guy

““Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.””
     — Milton Friedman

Tags: Milton Friedman ∙ goverment ∙ military ∙ contract law ∙ mala in se ∙ good intentions ∙ morality ∙ special interests ∙ inefficiency ∙ motivation ∙ freedom ∙ referee

The Right to Discriminate

““The left has created a macabre myth that runs counter to the whole experience of mankind. The left has persuaded the gullible masses of America, including, sadly, most conservatives, that "discrimination" by individuals and businesses is wrong and that it violates the Constitution.

Precisely the opposite is true. All serious cognition and all honest moral judgments involve discrimination. When individuals and businesses are not free to discriminate, then the power to determine what is true and false and good and bad becomes the sole property of the state – or that even more odious creature, that lobotomized Frankenstein monster, "society."

Instead of diverse opinions and actions freely manifest, which are what happens when the state and society are denied the power to force a certain viewpoint down the throats of private citizens and enterprises, what happens is that all debate, all differences, and all individuality are crushed based upon what those who run the state or manipulate society deem sacrosanct.””
     — Bruce Walker

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ Bruce Walker ∙ discriminate ∙ left ∙ America ∙ Constitution ∙ individual ∙ business ∙ society ∙ diversity

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ Jordan Peterson ∙ social justice ∙ pronouns

We're so conditioned to accept public schools as a Good Thing™ that we resist looking at options.

Tags: public schools ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ private alternative ∙ private sector ∙ competition ∙ school year ∙ internet ∙ education ∙ quality of life ∙ Alexis de Tocqueville ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ Clinton administration ∙ Obama administration ∙ affordability ∙ private companies ∙ choice ∙ truth

““More DOJ norms being eroded. Trump-a SUBJECT of the investigation-wants access to material related to the inquiry. His Congressional supporters want evidence connected to an ongoing investigation. Time for DOJ/FBI to simply say no-protect the institutions and time tested norms."””
     — Eric Holder tweet reported at Holder urges DOJ/FBI to unconstitutionally defy President: 'Protect the institutions'

Federal agencies and Federal agents serve at the pleasure of the President and Congress. That is directly from the Constitution. No institution may trump the Constitution. Democrats wouldn't stand for it if it were happening to a Democrat president or a Democrat Congress. There's more than a little hypocrisy here.

Tags: Eric Holder ∙ FedGovs ∙ institutions ∙ President ∙ Congress ∙ Democrats

Tags: memes ∙ rain water ∙ fishing ∙ ownership ∙ property ∙ business ∙ rennovate ∙ home ∙ vehicle ∙ marriage ∙ hunt ∙ weapons ∙ cut hair ∙ sell ∙ lemonade ∙ food ∙ grow a garden ∙ protest

Bitter lessons 25 years after Waco, Texas, siege

““Fifty-one days before the FBI final assault, scores of federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents launched an attack on the Davidians’ home spurred by allegations that they had converted semi-automatic rifles to full-automatic capacity. The ATF’s lead investigator had previously rejected an offer to peacefully search the Davidians’ home for firearms violations. Four ATF agents and six Davidians were killed in the fracas on February 28, 1993. At least one ATF agent told superiors that the ATF fired first, spurring an immediate end to the official shooting review. But the media trumpeted the ATF storyline that its agents had been ambushed, entitling the feds to be far more aggressive in the following weeks.

What lessons can today’s Americans draw from the FBI showdown on the Texas plains a quarter century ago?””
     — James Bovard

Tags: James Bovard ∙ Waco ∙ Texas ∙ Branch Davidians ∙ ATF ∙ FBI ∙ Janet Reno ∙ massacre

❝❝I just want to point out that American "defense" policy involves military action against nations when Congress hasn't declared war.

---

Even Trump complained when Obama launched military actions without Congressional approval.

You tell me. Should we change the Constitution so the President can attack any other nation on his authority alone? Or should we insist Congress does it's job?

Is this about America, right or wrong?

Or is it about liberty?

---

How about multiple missile attacks?

---

And is it right to launch missiles into other nations? You've said that eight months is sufficient. Is four months? Is four weeks? Is four days?

---

Is it right for other nations to launch missiles into our country?

After all, we have a proven record of meddling in the governments of other nations.

---

So you are saying that the U.S. has the unique power to fire missiles into other countries.

So much for freedom.

---

Obviously there is.

And it's even covered by that top ten list of yours.

---

At the very least, I think using a missile against innocents qualifies as murder.rob

---

Too late.

I do have a solution for the opium fields. But it doesn't involve armies. It would be a lot more effective though.

---

---

Oh?

There are an awful lot of people who got shot at who would disagree with you.

ETA: Not to mention all those overseas military bases.

---

You're arguing over definitions and a matter of degree.

---

Might doesn't make right. I've told you that before.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Or that you are justified in doing it.

---

Justified?

And if we're wrong, does that make us weak? Or just a bully that no one wants to face?

---

There is a century old story that I tell sometimes. Back during the Russian revolution, President Wilson sent American troops to intervene. The "mission" was murky at best, which led to failed promises and out-and-out lies. Wilson did this without Congressional authorization, we weren't at war with Russia.

Fast forward a couple of decades. Some of the Soviet General Staff had faced American soldiers in the trenches. They knew exactly what American words were worth.

And after WWII, that shaped the Cold War.

All because an American President took it on himself to intervene in a revolution without Congressional authority.

---

Don't get mad at me. It's right there in the Constitution. And if Congress hasn't declared war, then why are American troops fighting?

Considering who has been President, do you really want no checks and balances when it comes to war?

---

So why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?

---

Politicos have sacrificed the nation's honor and the lives of American troops for what?

Why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?❞❞

Tags: picture ∙ American ∙ defense ∙ military ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Constitution ∙ presidential power ∙ Congress ∙ missiles ∙ Robert Taft

“Since the end of the Cold War, SWAT teams have proliferated across the United States and the number of no-knock raids on private citizens has risen dramatically. Abby Hall and Chris Coyne explain that this is the result of the boomerang effect– the process by which, in the absence of strong formal constraints, tactics used in foreign interventions abroad are later used to limit the liberties of people back home.”

Tags: video ∙ Mercatus Center ∙ Cold War ∙ SWAT teams ∙ United States ∙ no-knock raids ∙ private citizens ∙ Abby Hall ∙ Chris Coyne ∙ boomerang effect

Tags: Caleb Howe ∙ memes ∙ gun control ∙ banning ∙ restricting ∙ firearms ∙ white privilege ∙ rich liberals ∙ defend their own life ∙ ivory tower ∙ personal safety ∙ just have the maid do it

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Second Amendment ∙ Pennsylvania ∙ dental care. ∙ islamist ∙ jihadist ∙ Palestine ∙ census ∙ citizenship question ∙ Syria ∙ Rex Tillerson ∙ Mitch McConnell ∙ Senate ∙ FirstEnergy ∙ Skripal ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ regulation ∙ competition ∙ Andrew McCabe ∙ DoJ ∙ FBI ∙ gun control ∙ David Hogg ∙ free range kids ∙ hemp ∙ Congress

❝❝The ability to earn, keep, and move money without government monitoring or control.

The ability to travel without being searched and having my belongings seized.

The ability to practice my faith and others as I choose without harassment, including celebrating rites and rituals that aren't "mine."

The presumption of innocence if charged with a crime.

Ownership of property without the threat of government seizure.

The ability to speak and write my thoughts and beliefs without prosecution.

There are others, but those are the biggies.

---

"Yeah, taxes are a bitch. But how do you think you get that massive military and corporate welfare you guys love so much?"

That has nothing to do with Libertarianism or libertarianism.

You keep trying to get me to justify Republican positions of the things that certain conservatives have done. Why should I point out that income taxes by their nature require massive surveillance powers when you just assume that I support a massive military and corporate welfare?

You want specific examples? Fine.

I don't support corporatism, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, or any variant. If a company can't succeed without government help, it doesn't deserve to exist.

The only reason the U.S. "needs" a massive military is because we are actively meddling in the internal affairs of so many other nations. And then we take offense when other nations try to meddle with us.

All but three of the 9-11 terrorists were in direct violation of American law before 9-11. Nearly everything the U.S. has done since is security theater and plain oppression while expanding the police state.

Yes, I have had belongings seized, and none of your business.

No, I can't practice any rite or ritual I choose. Even leaving out the ones I usually practice nekkid, there are so-called liberals who object to any religion. Then there are the conservatives who object to any non-Christian religion, especially if their version of Christianity is not placed above all others. There is a casual assumption of "Judeo-Christian" values in public life that implies that other faiths only exist at the sufferance of "good Christians." There are rituals which by law I am not allowed to participate in, such as the peyote rites of the Native American Church. By law if I am not from a recognized tribe, I am not allowed to possess the feathers of a raptor, even if I found them on the ground. In some jurisdictions, this extends to ravens and crows.

I have "selective" free speech. There are hate speech laws on the books in this country. Universities and political gatherings regularly confine dissenters to "free speech zones." Microsoft just announced that they will be reviewing private accounts to screen for hate speech and "unsuitable content." Twitter regularly deletes conservative and libertarian posters. YouTube either demonetizes or deletes conservative and libertarian content. Lately YouTube has even gone after prepper and gun review videos. The only way to get around this is to own your own domain and pay for a hosting service, but that is no guarantee.

I want a world with less government than absolutely necessary. If I wanted a world where nothing bad happened, I would want more government to protect me. Of course more government couldn't protect me, but that is another topic.

Drug laws came from progressives, just as Prohibition did.

I'm not a conservative. Quit lumping me in with them. I don't believe in warrantless searches, period.

I was born on the Navajo reservation. I grew up in Arizona and I still live here. I've witnessed oppression. And yes, I've lived through it too. But I am not doing this for "poor little me" or because I want people to acknowledge my victimhood. It's not me that is important.

I'm doing this because there is a right and a wrong and the difference is not hard to find. I'm doing this because we're measured in the lives we touch. I'm doing this because we're here to make the World a little better than how we found it.

So quit trying to make it worse because a "white" did something to a "black." Quit trying to make the Democrats heroes because they care for the "little guy" even as they work to keep them victims. Quit slapping labels on people to excuse their bad behavior.

I'm human. You're human. That person over there is human. Don't judge by the labels. Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don't.❞❞

Tags: money ∙ travel ∙ siezed ∙ faith ∙ rites and rituals ∙ presumption of innocence ∙ property rights ∙ speak ∙ write ∙ thought control

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Facebook ∙ diversity ∙ census ∙ Electronic Health Records ∙ Second Amendment ∙ Paul Stevens ∙ Cambridge Analytica ∙ bad cops ∙ Android phones ∙ Microsoft ∙ offensive language ∙ Obama campaign ∙ Planned Parenthood ∙ Disney ∙ Europe ∙ refugee ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ internet ∙ conservative ∙ Parkland shooting

❝❝I never expected Trump to do anything except disrupt.

Pardon, but you're making the same mistake they did. You think that if the right person was in charge, everything would be okay.

Government is not your friend.

---

We will have a government regardless - until we replace it. The replacement may or may not work as well, it may or may not get better, but the ability to replace is inherent in the promise of America.

We've not had a "better" government in decades. Good government is not measured by how much government controls, but by how much it doesn't. It's no accident that America's greatest advances come from places that government doesn't regulate.

Sometimes (and more times than we'd like to admit), the best way to fix something is to replace it. Sometimes the only way to replace something is to destroy it. It works that way with food, clothing, houses. It works that way with cars, companies, and marriages. And yes, sometimes it works that way with government.

---

There is some opinion that NASA exists to keep other (and particularly American private interests) out of space. There a fair-to-middling novel Kings of the High Frontier, that explores that. I'm rereading it right now.

We understood the principles behind the internet years before. AT&T had adopted some of them years before to keep long-distance phone calls from being interrupted. Even after the internet became public, the real driver for bandwidth and video compression was porn. Netflix owes it's existence to horny men looking for naked pictures.

Building roads has always been easy. Maintaining roads is the hard part. There government has failed so much that "infrastructure" is a code word for raising taxes.

My faith is in the free market, not consumer capitalism.

Trump is changing things (and disrupting things), but he's only a small part of what is happening.

---

First of all, they were poor before Trump was even a candidate. And they weren't helped by Obama's war on the coal industry. If you read the article, state and local authorities had a hand in there too.

I haven't looked at this in depth, but I know there wasn't much of an economic base to begin with. Despite what is claimed, that's not something that any government can create. At a minimum, it requires good ideas and private investment.

Oh, and the jobs vanishing overseas? That's something the Democrats and Republicans share the blame for.

---

Like Venezuela?

I could give you pages of proof, but long story short, central control distorts the economy. The more pressure focused in one area, the bigger the disruption. On a small enough scale, you may escape second and third order functions. But if you are using a healthy economy to support massive intervention, you are pretty much guaranteeing those second and third order disruptions.

Think of it like tapping a water main without turning down the pressure. It will give way, it will require replacement, and while it is being fixed most of the system will have to be shut down. The only question is when.

---

I'm not a conservative.

I picked Venezuela because in just a few short years socialism destroyed a robust, expanding, petroleum based economy.

Your other examples aren't exactly socialist either. They are more progressive than the US, but they have not nationalized their means of production. Unlike say, Venezuela.

---

Have you taken a closer look at the Obama Administration? Cronyism, emotional appeal, basically everything that Trump does except it was (mostly) within the system.

Government is not your friend.

---

I repeat, have you taken a look at the Obama administration? A good, long, hard, unbiased look? Have you seen how many of his contributors benefited?

Nor is the Obama administration alone.

This is what annoys me. You're all set to blame Trump and the GOP for crimes against humanity all while excusing the crimes and excesses of the Democrats. And you are still calling for more government control.

Now if you really want, we can match abuse of power against abuse of power. I can tell you horror stories about Congresscritters and technocrats. I can show how almost everything you've been told about economics is designed to confuse you and keep you quiet. I can prove that almost everything government tells you is a lie just to convince you that government is necessary and that one flavor of politics is better than the other.

---

How about I tell you truths instead?

Government is not your friend.

Politics is about control, not truth, not compassion, not liberty, and not funding.

There's no Man on a White Horse riding to the rescue. You shouldn't trust anyone who looks like that because they are cosplaying.

The Republicans and the Democrats are about equally as guilty for the mess we're in. Each will blame the other, then you for not caring enough. Each will want more money and more power.

There's no objective difference between the party on the right and the party on the left. The only difference is who gets screwed now and who gets screwed tomorrow.

Blame Trump. Blame Obama. Blame Smith. It doesn't matter because government is the problem.

Government is not your friend.

---

Obama didn't reduce the debt. He reduced the deficit. That means the government didn't overspend as much as it had in previous years. Oh, and by the way, they printed more currency to "cover" some of the difference which raised the inflation rate and the interest on the national debt.

Trump didn't nuke North Korea. He responded to provocation, as Presidents at least as far back as Kennedy have done. And by the way, the Norks are willing to negotiate now.

I don't remember seeing anything about Trump going after gay marriage.

Before you defend the ACA, take a look at the costs of healthcare starting when Medicare became law. It's no accident that the costs have exceeded inflation every year since. Thanks to the ACA, dozens of states are scrambling to try to cover healthcare costs. Some are opting out of the program. Legally they aren't supposed to, but there is no way they can cover costs.

I'm not familiar with Golden Valley.

Only Congress can decriminalize marijuana. Since they are exploiting an opioid crisis created by government action, I don't expect them to act soon. Basically when Obama's DoJ stopped enforcing marijuana law, they were breaking the law.

The cities and counties who have the strictest gun laws are the same cities and counties who have the highest rate of gun crimes. Pay specific attention to Chicago and Baltimore. Most of those areas have had Democrat administrations for decades.

"Vote Democrat." Why? So we can fall off the left side instead of the right side?

Government should be smaller than absolutely necessary.

---

You mean the multinational corporations who pay both sides but mainly the left ones to pass laws and regulations that benefit them and shut out competition?

You mean the alt-right is a bigger threat than unaccountable race hustlers and movements like BLM who focus on events that fit the narrative and exclude things like "black" on "black" crime in the major cites?

You mean like the attacks on Christianity that happen just because someone professes their faith?

And let's not forget all those people who are only too willing to tell "white" people what they can and cannot say, what they can and cannot think, what they can and cannot do, because of "white privilege."

Government is playing all sides (not both sides, all sides) against each other, and the politicos just keep getting taxes and more power.

Like I told you before, if you want to keep the people you distrust from having power over you backed by government force, the only sure way is to drastically reduce government power. That way you can't mess with them and they can't mess with you.

---

But it is possible.

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense: “Society is produced by our wants and, government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.”

Milton Friedman wrote: “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”

James Madison said: "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

People are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. Those choices won’t always be ones you agree with. Sometimes those choices will be bad ones with terrible consequences. Still, freedom is based on choice. Without choice, there is no freedom. Without freedom, we aren’t human.

You are perfectly capable of making your own decisions. That is your right, that is what makes you human, and f*ck all to anyone who tells you different.

KYFHO now and forever. The only protection you should get is the certainty that NO ONE ELSE can use government to control you.

But, if you expect that right for yourself, you’d better damn well defend if for others. Even if you don’t like them. Even if you don’t trust them. Especially if you don’t trust them. Otherwise you will lose your choice.

Otherwise you will lose your freedom.

It’s simple. If you want to live free, you can’t meddle in other’s lives.

The second you start meddling is the second you sacrifice your own rights.

“The greater good” is just as big a tyranny as “for you own good.”

You only think it’s fantasy because that is what you’ve been taught by those benefitting from the current power structure.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ disrupt ∙ government is not your friend ∙ NASA ∙ space flight ∙ internet ∙ AT&T ∙ Venezuela ∙ socialism ∙ Obama Administration ∙ abuse of power ∙ national debt ∙ North Korea ∙ Obamacare ∙ Congress ∙ marijuana ∙ opoid crisis ∙ DoJ ∙ gun control ∙ network ∙ infrastructure reforms ∙ Netflix ∙ pornography ∙ Barack Obama ∙ coal power

❝❝You can’t hoard freedom. It’s not really liberty unless you share it.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, Lady Liberty

Tags: maxims ∙ freedom

Tags: child ∙ armed ∙ statist

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Claudette Colvin ∙ California ∙ sanctuary state ∙ gun rights ∙ New Yorker ∙ #MarchForOurLives ∙ David Hogg ∙ cultural revolution ∙ Mao Zedong ∙ Barack Obama ∙ segregation ∙ Rosa Parks ∙ bus seat ∙ Facebook ∙ data mining ∙ Brigitte Bardot ∙ France ∙ Algeria

Tags: CDC ∙ opoid crisis ∙ Earth Hour ∙ Human Achievement Hour ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ DNC ∙ Cambridge Analytica ∙ healthcare ∙ hospital ∙ rural Americans ∙ Dodd-Frank ∙ Congress ∙ David Hogg ∙ Scott Walker ∙ Wisconsin ∙ welfare ∙ #MeToo ∙ due process ∙ Jann Wenner ∙ YouTube ∙ gun videos ∙ Facebook ∙ regulation ∙ Larry Krasner ∙ DA ∙ Philadelphia ∙ CLOUD Act ∙ Nobel Prize ∙ Barack Obama ∙ commercial real estate ∙ bubble ∙ Mary Magdalene

Tags: gun control ∙ gun confiscation ∙ law enforcement ∙ teenager ∙ AR 15

Tags: sports ∙ viewers ∙ FBI ∙ Attorney General ∙ Jeff Sessions ∙ FOSTA ∙ prostitution ∙ crimminal probe ∙ sucession ∙ Elizabeth Warren ∙ CFPB ∙ Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ conservative ∙ Congress ∙ budget deficits ∙ free range kids ∙ RussiaGate ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ special counsel ∙ labels ∙ pronouns ∙ power over speech ∙ Google ∙ Amazon ∙ EU ∙ Facebook ∙ NOAA ∙ climate change ∙ adjusted temperatures ∙ lawsuit ∙ David Hogg ∙ speech wars ∙ digitalships ∙ double standards ∙ diversity ∙ public safety ∙ Florida ∙ Palm Beach County

““Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.””

— P.J. O'Rourke

Tags: P. J. O’Rourke ∙ memes ∙ empowerment ∙ gun ∙ duty ∙ consequences ∙ rights ∙ education ∙ healthcare ∙ food ∙ housing ∙ freedom ∙ dependency ∙ rations ∙ slavery ∙ human cattle

““What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.””

— Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ memes ∙ government ∙ forbidden

I am not going to go into gun rights here.

Tags: guns ∙ gun laws ∙ Keystone Cops ∙ Florida ∙ local government ∙ mass shootings ∙ gun ownership ∙ homicide ∙ concealed carry

Tags: Congress ∙ Hungary ∙ sociaism ∙ women ∙ Obamacare ∙ Stephen Hawking ∙ Clinton campaign ∙ Fusion GPS ∙ Mit Romney ∙ Obama campaign ∙ retail ∙ shoppers ∙ returning mechandise ∙ database ∙ EU ∙ United Nations ∙ mass migration ∙ House committe ∙ no collusion ∙ television networks ∙ Florida ∙ Iowa ∙ TIGER Program ∙ government ∙ banned ∙ female bartenders

The American extended childhood is a post WWII phenomena. That's also what gave us the Baby Boomers, the less said about the better.

Tags: WWII ∙ extended childhood ∙ labor force ∙ industrial base ∙ parents ∙ kids ∙ generations ∙ social engineering ∙ competition

““The 2nd Amendment - Making more women equal than the entire feminist movement””

Tags: 2nd Amendment ∙ women ∙ feminist ∙ equality ∙ memes

I think it's despicable and dishonorable to capitalize on tragedy hours after a mass shooting, but hey, what do I know?

Tags: mass shootings ∙ gun rights ∙ Florida ∙ Chicago

I reserve the right to tie anyone in semantic knots if I can do it with truth.

Tags: truth ∙ semantic knots ∙ anti-gun ∙ gun control ∙ victim disarmament ∙ news ∙ balance ∙ progressive ∙ conservative ∙ institutions ∙ top down ∙ competition ∙ Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ political parties ∙ racketeering ∙ government is not your friend

Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.

We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we're drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]

Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]

Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.

President von Weizsacker has said, "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed." Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.

In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State--as you've been told--George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos."

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium--virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany--busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the wonderful goods of the Ku'damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on--Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.]

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.

Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.

As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.

While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative--research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.

In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place--a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.

In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.

Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.

And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world.

To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.

With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation.

There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same. And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.

One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea--South Korea--has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You've done so in spite of threats--the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love--love both profound and abiding.

Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere--that sphere that towers over all Berlin--the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.

As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.

And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.

Thank you and God bless you all.

President Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Tags: Ronald Reagan ∙ Berlin ∙ tear down this wall ∙ 1987 ∙ Marshall Plan ∙ West Germany ∙ free world

““First, there is nothing either intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong about liberty or slavery, democracy or autocracy, freedom of action or complete regimentation. It seems to us, however, that the greatest measure of happiness and of well-being for the greatest number of entities, and therefore the optimum advancement toward whatever sublime Goal it is toward which this cycle of existence is trending in the vast and unknowable Scheme of Things, is to be obtained by securing for each and every individual the greatest amount of mental and physical freedom compatible with the public welfare.””
     — E. E. Smith, First Lensman

Tags: E. E. Smith ∙ Lensman ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ slavery ∙ democracy ∙ autocracy ∙ freedom of action ∙ complete regimentation ∙ happiness ∙ wellfare-being ∙ freedom ∙ public welfare

“5 Facts That Gun Control Advocates Hate”

Tags: gun control ∙ mass shootings ∙ gun free zone ∙ memes ∙ gun violence ∙ gun show loophole ∙ self defense ∙ gun bans ∙ genocide

“Is that what they are saying? Is that right?”

Tags: 2nd Amendment ∙ memes ∙ government ∙ Donald Trump ∙ trust ∙ cops ∙ military ∙ racist ∙ gun free zone

Tags: Calvin Coolidge ∙ people ∙ America ∙ less ∙ memes ∙ government ∙ more ∙ for themselves ∙ rewards

““Admit it, what is worrying you is right and justice; what is worrying you is ownership – not yours, of course, but that of others. You find it difficult to accept that others are free to dispose of their property (the only way to be an owner); you want to dispose of your property . . . and theirs.””
     — Frederic Bastiat, “Plunder and the Law”

Tags: Frederic Bastiat ∙ right ∙ justice ∙ ownership ∙ property rights

Let kids work at playing

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ kids ∙ public schools ∙ problem solving ∙ practice adulthood

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Rush Limbaugh ∙ vegan ∙ election ∙ CIA ∙ University of Missouri ∙ agitprop ∙ protesters ∙ Russian disinformation ∙ James Damore ∙ Google ∙ public health ∙ pornography ∙ Obama administration ∙ DHS ∙ Russian hack ∙ immigration

Ah, "anthropogenic global warming/cooling/drastic weather." In a word, unproven.

Tags: Andrew Sullivan ∙ individual merit ∙ Enlightenment principles ∙ American experiment ∙ free speech ∙ due process ∙ individual rights ∙ white male ∙ power ∙ oppression

Tags: Black History Month ∙ Philadelphia ∙ marijuana ∙ white supremacy ∙ fraud ∙ Peace Through Strength ∙ Arizona ∙ sexual misconduct ∙ crimminal case ∙ civil settlement ∙ FBI ∙ Jeff Sessions ∙ Women’s March ∙ Carter G. Woodson ∙ Greg Gutfeld ∙ mass shootings ∙ 2nd Amendment

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ Penn & Teller ∙ gun control

Tags: ReasonTV ∙ video ∙ guest content ∙ Morris Fiorina ∙ majority party ∙ Stanford

“Let's talk about democracy & liberty. Which is more important and why? Should we value freedom, or majority rule?”

Tags: Roaming Millennial ∙ video ∙ guest content ∙ democracy ∙ majority rule ∙ Lauren Chen

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge. Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Davos, Switzerland
February 8, 1996

Tags: John Perry Barlow ∙ Davos ∙ Switzerland ∙ 1996 ∙ guest content ∙ cyberspace ∙ goverment ∙ transactions ∙ relationships ∙ thought ∙ mind

“““Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves” ””
     — Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works - Volume XII

Tags: Abraham Lincoln

Tags: John Stossel ∙ video ∙ human freedom index ∙ America

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: pagan ∙ Robert Finicum ∙ postpartum depression ∙ Cambridge May Ball ∙ Peter Strzok ∙ Lisa Page ∙ national ID card ∙ wrongful death ∙ checkpoints ∙ Grammys ∙ microschools ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ sexual harassment ∙ immigration reform ∙ ICE ∙ license plate ∙ fake news ∙ FBI ∙ FOIA ∙ solstice ∙ pagan news ∙ feminist ∙ reform ∙ Alexa

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Crux Files ∙ climate change ∙ plant trees ∙ grow a garden ∙ climate alarmist ∙ profit ∙ foreign policy ∙ government ∙ Somebody Else's Problem ∙ Christians ∙ nuclear power ∙ Earth Day ∙ climate gap ∙ UNFCCC ∙ EPA ∙ political coup ∙ prestige ∙ truth ∙ heretic ∙ science is settled ∙ power ∙ money ∙ carbon dioxide ∙ scientists ∙ cascade effect ∙ spreadsheets ∙ consensus ∙ advertising ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ science ∙ Earth-centered religion ∙ human influence ∙ volcanos ∙ pollution ∙ water shortage ∙ mass produced architecture ∙ back seat ∙ climate models ∙ suberted ∙ industrial chemicals ∙ greenhouse gases ∙ raccoon population explosion ∙ polar bears ∙ environmental movement ∙ human activity ∙ climatology

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: conservatism ∙ progressivism ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ posse comitatus ∙ military surplus ∙ common good ∙ higher taxes ∙ more laws ∙ increased regulations ∙ less freedom ∙ goverment ∙ military spending ∙ law enforcement ∙ emergency aid ∙ War on Drugs ∙ someone else's money ∙ limiting government ∙ Ronald Reagan

Of Crudeness and Truth

““Let’s state the obvious. Some countries are shitholes. To claim that this is racist is racist. They are not shitholes because of the color of the populace but because of bad ideas, corrupt governance, false religion, and broken culture. Further, most of the problems in these countries are generated at the top. Plenty of rank-and-file immigrants from such ruined venues ultimately make good Americans—witness those who came from 1840s potato-famine Ireland, a shithole if ever there was one! It takes caution and skill to separate the good from the bad.

For these very reasons, absurd immigration procedures like chain migration, lotteries, and unvetted entries are deeply destructive. They can lead to the sort of poor choices that create a Rotherham. Trump’s suggestions—to vet immigrants for pro-American ideas and skills that will help our country—are smart and reasonable and would clearly make the system better if implemented.

So, when it comes to the Great Shithole Controversy of 2018, my feeling is: I do not care, not even a little. I’m sorry that it takes someone like Trump to break the spell of silence the Left is forever weaving around us. I wish a man like Ronald Reagan would come along and accomplish the same thing with more wit and grace. But that was another culture. History deals the cards it deals; we just play them. Trump is what we’ve got.””
     — Andrew Klavan

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Andrew Klavan ∙ City Journal ∙ racist ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ shitholes

“If You Think Haiti Is a Shithole, Then Blame America for Helping to Make It That Way”

Tags: clipping ∙ Tate Watkins ∙ shitholes ∙ guest content ∙ Hati ∙ United States ∙ occupation ∙ U.S. Marines ∙ chain gangs

In the name of the greater good, the US supported tyranny and dictators all over the globe.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ United States ∙ tyranny ∙ dictators ∙ meddle ∙ bully ∙ Russian revolution ∙ trade-immigration-tolerance ∙ Mighty Mouse ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Cold War ∙ moral superiority

“Corruption, abuse scandals, extravagant spending, and laughable committee assignments. Here are some of the biggest problems with the United Nations.”

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ United Nations ∙ Roaming Millennial ∙ Nikki Haley ∙ Trump administration

““You don't control government. It's easy to think of the perfect law that will stop the bad guys while leaving the good guys unhindered. But no law will be written the way you have in mind, it won't be administered the way you have in mind, and it won't be adjudicated the way you have in mind.””
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ control

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Iran ∙ corporatist ∙ milirarist ∙ coup ∙ global warming ∙ police misconduct ∙ freedom ∙ Washington D.C. ∙ establishment ∙ voters

Tags: Al Gore ∙ election ∙ Arizona ∙ climate change ∙ artic blast ∙ United Airlines ∙ UK ∙ Roy Moore ∙ gun law ∙ Ron Wyden ∙ #MeToo ∙ marijuana ∙ alcohol ∙ radical feminists ∙ occupational licensing ∙ victimhood ∙ freedom ∙ self destructive ∙ intel community ∙ Don Boudreaux ∙ Claire Wolfe ∙ Homeland Security ∙ no-go zones ∙ radical Islam ∙ Sheila Jackson Lee ∙ fake news

“Why legal guns can’t be banned from (Delaware) state parks”

Tags: Craig Anderson ∙ Delaware ∙ guns ∙ state parks ∙ clipping ∙ maxims

Standard Approved Government Solution

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment ∙ limits ∙ does not work ∙ power ∙ misued ∙ control ∙ expensive ∙ expansive ∙ 2003

““What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.””
     — Thomas Paine

Tags: Thomas Paine ∙ cheap ∙ lightly ∙ value

“The Tea Act: The Catalyst of the Boston Tea Party”

Tags: calendars ∙ 1773 ∙ Tea Act ∙ Boston Tea Party ∙ painting ∙ guest content

This is bar none my favorite picture version of this George Orwell quote. The guy's expression sells it. He didn't expect it, and now he has to think about it.

And yes, it influenced me. It's probably my favorite Orwell quote.

Tags: George Orwell ∙ picture ∙ guest content ∙ memes ∙ do not want to hear

You should know these rights. You should defend these rights.

Tags: Bill of Rights ∙ First Amendment ∙ Second Amendment ∙ Third Amendment ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ Fifth Amendment ∙ Sixth Amenedment ∙ Seventh Amendment ∙ Eighth Amendment ∙ Ninth Amendment ∙ Tenth Amendment

““If you want to find utopia, take a sharp right on money and a sharp left on sex and it's straight ahead.””
     — Penn Jillette

Tags: Penn Jillette ∙ picture ∙ guest content ∙ Utopia ∙ sharp right ∙ sharp left ∙ money ∙ sex ∙ memes

Odd tactic from the Grand and Glorious Imperious Leader

Tags: Diné ∙ oppress ∙ Native American ∙ capitalism ∙ borrow ∙ Voting Rights Act of 1965 ∙ Western Civilization ∙ pluralism ∙ choice ∙ responsibility ∙ clear title ∙ Hernando De Soto ∙ American Dream ∙ government ∙ Amerindians ∙ the Rez ∙ victimhood

““I am an American and a Patriot. I am my country's keeper. The President and Congress report to me. And so - I will stay informed and involved. Ignorance, apathy, and complacency are my enemy. I will make my voice heard and not just at election time. Silence is the same as consent in the face of oppression. I can make a difference. I matter.I am an American and a Patriot.””

Tags: picture ∙ American ∙ patriot ∙ President ∙ Congress ∙ informed ∙ involved ∙ ignorance ∙ apathy ∙ complacency ∙ enemy ∙ voice ∙ election ∙ silence ∙ consent ∙ oppression ∙ memes

Tags: Roaming Millennial ∙ video ∙ guest content ∙ Masterpiece Cakeshop ∙ Jack Phillips ∙ discriminate ∙ wedding cake

““We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.””
     — John F. Kennedy

Tags: John F. Kennedy ∙ open market ∙ American people ∙ fear ∙ unpleasant facts ∙ foreign ideas ∙ falsehood ∙ truth ∙ competitive values ∙ alien philosophies

You didn't think they were serious, did you?

Tags: politicos ∙ left-wing ∙ right-wing ∙ children ∙ fighting poverty ∙ family values ∙ fighting drugs ∙ goverment ∙ bigger ∙ Harry Browne

Great quote that's right on the money

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ pure democracy ∙ unconditional surrender ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ progressives ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ misogynist ∙ racists ∙ sore losers ∙ ever expanding ∙ goverment ∙ self apponted ∙ elites ∙ demonized ∙ protesters ∙ positive changes ∙ sacrificing freedom ∙ smash storefronts ∙ we're here now

Those aren't union members on the picket line

Tags: Winston Churchill ∙ dictator ∙ pedestals ∙ forbidden ∙ bayonets ∙ soldiers ∙ truncheons ∙ police ∙ fear ∙ thoughts

❝❝Celebrate your beliefs and cherish your faith. All I ask is the same. Just don't demand that my beliefs and actions are bound by yours. Live and let live.

What you believe isn't important to me. Your freedom to choose what to believe, that is vital. That is what I will defend.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, A Pagan looks at “Christian America”

Tags: maxims ∙ beliefs ∙ faith ∙ live & let live ∙ freedom of choice ∙ Christian

“What are human rights? Are they universal? This video compares the definition of natural vs. legal rights, and positive vs. negative rights. Locke's Second Treatise of Government was a big inspiration to me in this video, so if you haven't read it yet, you definitely should :)”

Tags: Roaming Millennial ∙ video ∙ guest content ∙ natural rights ∙ legal rights ∙ positive rights ∙ negative rights

❝❝There are two assumptions implicit in public accommodation laws. First is that there is a class of people who no matter what can never ever do things on their own. Second is that most people no matter what can never ever be trusted to do the right thing.

I think both assumptions are wrong.

---

Good law has been used for bad purposes since someone bothered to write down the law. The question you should ask is which is more important, freedom or misuse of the law?

It's my old friend, the parity test. If Christians can be barred from living their faith, what's to stop pagans from being barred from living theirs? Or atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, or any of a thousand others?

Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean that it should be illegal and that someone should be punished for it. I'd say that the guideline should be measurable harm to someone's person, liberty, and property. Hurting your feelings shouldn't qualify. I deal with the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita laws at my politics blog at www DOT paganvigil DOT com SLASH files SLASH RootsGovPower061204 DOT html.

Incidentally, the right of free association was one of the "understood" rights covered by the Tenth Amendment. After all, the U.S. had just fought a war over it.

---

Up until that time, it was one of the biggest wars about non-association ever fought.

Freedoms seldom clash with each other. Someone wanting to control others through religion isn't freedom, it's politics. Knowing the difference can be helpful.

I'm not responsible for how someone feels, especially since both the feelings and the standards used to justify those feelings change often. Measurable harm to someone's person, property, and liberty is one of the few objective standards we can agree on. A microaggression is what the victim says it is, and some things become microaggressions that weren't last week. It's privilege. I don't have time or energy to indulge it anymore.❞❞

Tags: freedom ∙ misuse of law ∙ parity test ∙ measurable harm ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ microaggression ∙ victim ∙ privilege

Just in case you wanted to know

Tags: Ralph Nader ∙ Al Gore ∙ George W. Bush ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Masterpiece Cakeshop ∙ religious freedom ∙ First Amendment

What would you do and why would you do it?

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ leaders

❝❝That is the tragedy of the “American Century.” We forgot that liberty can't be imposed by the top down, it has to be seized from the bottom up.

As long as our government plays the games of international brinkmanship and global politics, we lose.

We're best when we protect our own freedom and inspire others though our example. People in other nations have to crave freedom and demand their own rights. It's the only way it will take root.

As a nation, we can't take out another government except by invading. Historically, that has not worked out well for America. It certainly destroyed our prestige.

But building trade, private investment in local economies, that delivered wonders.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ American Century ∙ tragedy ∙ freedom ∙ inspire ∙ government ∙ trade ∙ private enterprise

❝❝It's about the liberty, you see. You can't give that to anyone.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: liberty ∙ maxims

❝❝At this point, I don't think anyone can stop the collapse. Nor do I think that's bad. There are how many laws on the books? How many regulations in the Federal Register? We've been conditioned to depend on government to help us. Cut spending, but not national defense. Cut spending, but not aid to Israel or Saudi Arabia. Cut spending, but not Social Security. And some banks and unions are Too Big To Fail.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: regulations ∙ cut spending ∙ national defense ∙ israel ∙ Saudi Arabia ∙ too big to fail ∙ maxims

❝❝When a politico wraps himself in the flag, double check your liberty and count on finding brown stains afterwards.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: politicos ∙ flag ∙ maxims

❝❝Faith is nothing without choice.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: faith ∙ choice ∙ maxims

❝❝OK, taxes. According the the OMB, the top 20% of taxpayers pay 95% of income taxes. In 2015, the WSJ reported that the top 20% paid 84% of income taxes. In 2015, the top .1% (yes, that's one-tenth of one percent) of families paid 39.2% of income taxes. In 2015, all but the top 20% of taxpayers paid more in payroll taxes than they owed in Federal income tax, effectively giving the Federal government an interest free loan. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% of taxpayers have the Earned Income Tax Credit, a negative income tax. The government pays them. The thing is, smart rich people don't stuff their money in mattresses. They put it to work. If their money doesn't earn more than the rate of inflation, they've lost money. So they look for ways to maximize returns. Stocks, bonds, and mutual funds are the most common methods. This pumps money back into the economy. Lower prices, more companies hiring, and better distribution of goods and services are direct results. In other words, cutting taxes at any level gives people more choices and more economic power. It's not cutting taxes for the rich, it's cutting taxes. If you like, I can show how a progressive tax system locks people into income tiers and suppresses the natural movement up in income.❞❞

Tags: OMB ∙ Wall Street Journal ∙ income tax ∙ Federal government ∙ inflation ∙ competition ∙ progressive tax systems

❝❝Rights do not emanate from a state, nor do they require state sanction or approval.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: rights ∙ state ∙ sanction ∙ approval ∙ maxims

❝❝Where would we be if those angry guys hadn't been writing letters to each other for years by 1773?❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: angry guys ∙ letters ∙ 1773 ∙ maxims

❝❝Here is the American secret. You can occasionally be governed, but you can't be ruled.

That means you can't rule others, no matter how much you disagree with them.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: govern ∙ ruled ∙ maxims

❝❝The goal is not the institution of the Federal government.

The goal is freedom.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: Federal government ∙ freedom ∙ maxims

❝❝That's today's quick definition of liberty, folks. It's not a right unless the other guy has it too.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: right ∙ maxims ∙ other guy

❝❝It's no secret that I believe that free market ideas apply to any human exchange.

Free to choose. It's not just for economics anymore.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: choice ∙ choose ∙ maxims

Sometimes we pagans take our sex way too seriously.

Tags: reddit ∙ Donald Trump ∙ pagan ∙ sex ∙ rape ∙ accusations ∙ Harvey Weinstein ∙ witch hunt

This was FDR's State of the Union address in January, 1941. It was another speech that changed everything.

Tags: Jon Miltimore ∙ Intellectual Takeout ∙ Hannah Arendt ∙ violence ∙ social unrest ∙ Las Vegas ∙ mass shootings ∙ FBI ∙ totalitarianism ∙ bureaucracy

“Utah Nurse DRAGGED out of Hospital by Police 'This isn't right"”

Tags: assault ∙ Utah ∙ police ∙ nurse ∙ video ∙ guest content

“America’s Post-Charlottesville Nervous Breakdown Was Deliberately Induced”

Tags: clipping ∙ Federalist ∙ Stella Morabito

“…guard even his enemy from oppression.”

Tags: memes ∙ Thomas Paine ∙ enemy ∙ oppress

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: ACLU ∙ Venezuela ∙ Russia ∙ speech wars ∙ Mike Pence ∙ CNN ∙ white supremacy ∙ Congress ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ affirmative action ∙ Trump administration ∙ Iran ∙ webcams ∙ security ∙ UC Berkeley ∙ TSA ∙ privacy

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: speech wars ∙ Google ∙ Afghanistan ∙ Thomas Massie‏ ∙ Democrats ∙ IT scandal

Tags: ☆ ∙ Charlottesville ∙ violence ∙ speech wars ∙ cross posted ∙ Noam Chomsky

❝❝That's what worries me most about this. Once people decide that some labels deserve free speech and others don't, where does it stop?❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: New York Times ∙ ACLU ∙ speech wars

Tags: calendars ∙ women's rights ∙ August 18 1920

At least learn the definition

Tags: facism

This is the 1963 speech that Dr. King is best known for. It is the core of the 1960s Civil Rights movement.

Tags: libertarian ∙ Keith Hughes ∙ political matrix ∙ video ∙ guest content

Tags: Google memo ∙ police misconduct ∙ assault ∙ taser ∙ speech wars ∙ torture ∙ security ∙ passwords ∙ nuclear weapons ∙ North Korea ∙ Obama administration ∙ Department of Justice ∙ tarmac meeting ∙ Loretta Lynch ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ FBI ∙ talking points ∙ Venezuela ∙ inflation ∙ DNC emails ∙ The Nation

❝❝The message was clear. There are problems but your Government Is Taking Care Of It. You don't have to worry. It's Somebody Else's Problem. You don't have to be responsible. Just put the right people in charge. Give more money. Give more authority. Sacrifice more rights. Repeat until we get it right. And don't ask too many questions.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ message ∙ Somebody Else's Problem ∙ authority ∙ money ∙ rights ∙ questions

❝❝Let me point out that tax exempt status is at best a "devil's trade." In exchange for the tax deduction, the organizations (and sometimes the officers) lose their political voice and the IRS gets itemized lists of what was donated and who donated it.

There's also the small bit that if there are tax deductions, then by definition taxes are too high.

However, “Religion cannot be allowed the coercive power of government. Government cannot be allowed the moral justification of religion.”

---

The 1st Amendment doesn't deal with subsets. The incredibly ironic bit is the history of churches in American politics, particularly the abolitionist movement.

I didn't say it was a complete list, I said it was an itemized list. It is enough to find "known associates" though.

Tax deductions are evidence that taxes are too high. It's also evidence of diverting capital, taking it away from unapproved activities and moving it towards approved activities. There's more, but it involves a long examination of progressive tax systems and it won't add anything but noise to our conversation.

---

Abraham Keteltas, Samuel West, Jonathan Mayhew, Peter Muhlenberg, and Samuel Cooper were just some of the colonial era ministers. In England for a while, the American Revolution was called the Presbyterian Revolution because so many Presbyterian pastors were involved.

But the abolitionist movement and the American Civil War was when things really got going. Look at names like John Todd, Joshua Leavitt, Benjamin Bradford, Luther Lee, and Samuel Salisbury. Without these men and their churches, the abolitionist movement would never have blossomed. Christians aren't perfect and I am certainly a critic. But it took British and American Christians to end the slave trade, they deserve credit for that.

The 1950s-1960s civil rights movement was heavily rooted in churches, especially in the American south.

As I said, the tax exempt status is a "devil's trade" intended in large part to silence churches.

---

I provided examples which at the very least would have violated the propaganda restrictions of the Johnson amendment if it had been in effect then. Yet those are a valued part of American history and important benchmarks in religious freedom.

A little further examination would have shown that American churches and synagogues have traditionally called politicos out on bad ideas and bad behavior.

---

It's not about "prophesy of the pulpit." It's about moral authority. Ideas like liberty, revolution, and slavery were talked about during worship. In those days more than anything else including the press, worship is where those ideas were set out in detail by men who made their living communicating well and clearly. I admit it's a part of history that is often overlooked, but it exists none the less.

Take a closer look. The Johnson amendment covers both endorsement and anti-endorsement, intervening in political campaigns is prohibited. It also limits lobbying, propaganda, and other political activity.

Pagans of all people know what a bad idea it is when a politico wraps themselves in the flag and waves holy writ as justification.

BTW, I have to give you points for that phrase "prophesy of the pulpit." It's poetic if not exactly accurate in this case.

---

You're right, that part of the law is seldom enforced. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

So here is my next question. If the law as it exists is so potentially prone to abuse even as it is not enforced, why does the Johnson amendment exist?

My theory is that it was one of Johnson's infamous deals. In the early 1950s, the modern civil rights movement was just getting started, but the split was already there. It's a little inaccurate, but I call the two sides the MLK side and the Malcolm X side. Later the Malcolm X side was dominated by the Black Panthers, but that part of the story isn't necessary for our discussion here.

The MLK side wanted to work within the system making sure that existing law was enforced. The Malcolm X side relied on direct confrontation to create radical change and separate from the US if necessary. There was rivalry between the two sides, and at the time no one was sure which side would dominate. Johnson saw the potential need for what today we would call the nuclear option. As long as everything proceeded peacefully, the government would never need to use the stick. Meanwhile, everything was nicely registered and reported to the government, "just in case."

It wasn't the first time the IRS was used to monitor Americans and it wouldn't be the last.

---

You're right. I should have said existing Constitutional law, that was my mistake.

That wasn't the only operational difference, but it certainly was one of the most important. Bryan Burrough points out in Days of Rage that some "blacks" were disappointed as more moved north and they didn't instantly get more of what they felt had been denied them.

Existing state and local law in the south supported segregation, most Federal law did not. It varied in other states, not so much in the West but heavy in union states. When Truman reversed Wilson's segregation of the armed forces, the writing was on the wall.

---

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate free speech?

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate religion?

Yet the Johnson amendment does both.

Which tax argument? The fact that deductions mean that taxes are too high? Or that government uses a progressive tax code to encourage some behaviors and discourage others?

Can you show that either argument is BS?

---

Actually it does.

The perception in America is that you are not a "real" church unless you have tax exempt certification. Just like a few years back when conservative groups were having problems getting 503 certification, most people don't want to give money unless they know that the IRS is not going to audit them. The easy path is to do what the government tells you to do. That is not necessarily the right thing. Once a group has the certification, they are bound by the regulations if they wish to keep the majority of their donors. Those regulations are subject to change at any time, and have gotten more restrictive since the Johnson amendment was passed.

Every dollar that the government collects in taxes reduces individual purchasing power. Regardless of what some experts will tell you, the economy is driven by the individual buying goods and services and not by government regulation. More money, more purchases (or savings). Less money, more credit, less purchases and less savings.

Even if you think that only the "rich" pay higher taxes, that means less money for things like jobs, equipment, and expansion. That means less economic growth.

The second order effects of special taxes can be even worse. A few decades ago, Congress put out a luxury tax on high end planes, yachts, high end boats, and cars. All those industries took a major hit. Building and storing yachts and high end boats still haven't recovered.

It gets worse. Thanks to payroll withholding and "standard" deductions, the government effectively gives itself no-interest loans from your money. Multiply that by a hundred million or so and you get into some serious cash.

These are examples from taxes. I haven't discussed currency manipulation (inflation) or spending.

---

"Surely by your argument, there should be no tax exempt organizations at all, because the very existence of them proves taxes are too high."

Yes.

At the very least, no tax exempt organizations would mean fewer bureaucrats to monitor compliance and regulate.

"Government money goes back into the community and absolutely does stimulate economic growth."

It does that by displacing private investment. Private money wants a return on investment, which means maintaining facilities and periodic upgrades. Except for corporatism, companies stay in business by making their products better, cheaper, and more available.

"The rich actually mostly sock money away…"

Um, no they don't. There isn't a money vault or a stuffed mattress, smart people put their money to work. Some buy stocks, some buy bonds, some invest in companies. Unless the money earns a higher yield than the rate of inflation and the tax rate, it's worth less.

"…and pay LOWER taxes than the rest of us…"

According to the National Taxpayer Union Foundation, in 2014 the top ten percent of income earners paid 70.88% of the income tax. The top fifty percent of income earners paid 97.25% of the income tax.

Spending is not the same as taxing. Government at all levels has done a rotten job of maintaining facilities, much less upgrading them. Private ownership does wonders, as things like the Empire State Building show.

Government usually puts money aside for infrastructure and then diverts the money into more "essential" things. It's one of the oldest tricks in government accounting. Then more money is "needed."

What's more, government is a lousy judge of where to spend and what to spend it on. Just as one example, less than a handful of VA hospitals are worth it, but we keep tossing more and more money at the problem.❞❞

Tags: tax exempt ∙ devil's trade ∙ tax deduction ∙ political voice ∙ IRS ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ First Amendment ∙ capital ∙ unapproved activities ∙ approved activities ∙ progressive tax systems ∙ Abraham Keteltas ∙ Samuel West ∙ Jonathan Mayhew ∙ Peter Muhlenberg ∙ Samuel Cooper ∙ American Revolution ∙ Presbyterian Revolution ∙ abolitionist movement ∙ Civil War ∙ John Todd ∙ Joshua Leavitt ∙ Benjamin Bradford ∙ Luther Lee ∙ Samuel Salisbury ∙ churches ∙ Christians ∙ Johnson amendment ∙ synagogues ∙ politicos ∙ prophesy of the pulpit ∙ history ∙ National Taxpayer Union Foundation ∙ liberty ∙ revolution ∙ slavery ∙ worship

Tags: Obamacare ∙ health insurance ∙ transgender ∙ Coast Guard ∙ Donald Trump ∙ FBI ∙ social media ∙ 2016 election ∙ fake news ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Venezuela ∙ Australia's Bureau of Meteorology ∙ immigration ∙ social engineers ∙ Republican shadow campaign ∙ New York Times ∙ Dunkirk ∙ job growth ∙ Barack Obama

Somehow I don't believe this.

Tags: RussiaGate ∙ CIA ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Seymour Hersh ∙ Afghanistan ∙ Trump administration ∙ climate alarmist ∙ Europe ∙ nergy providers ∙ law of unexpected consequences ∙ Venezuela ∙ Intervene ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Center for American Progress ∙ Heritage Foundation ∙ Cato Institute ∙ Obamacare ∙ healthcare ∙ consumer choice ∙ insurance ∙ National Security Advisor ∙ H.R. McMaster ∙ Clinton campaign ∙ Hillary Clinton