Follow by Email

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Politico, Gene Demby & the Lie of the “New Civil Rights Movement”


The following essay from Politico is a leftist’s attempt to convince us that the reaction we’ve seen to recent events in Ferguson and New York is a noble “civil rights movement.”  It makes for a good lesson on how leftist’s lie and spin.  The comments in red italics are mine.  ~CW


The shattering events of 2014, beginning with Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, in August, did more than touch off a national debate about police behavior, criminal justice and widening inequality in America.

There’s the first lie.  There’s been nothing resembling “debate.”  Debate implies honest people calmly engaging in a sincere examination of both sides of an argument.  Instead what we’ve seen is the opposite of debate.  Race hustlers with a one-sided agenda swarmed in and people have rushed to judgment before hearing the facts.  That’s not something to be proud of, it’s shameful, and it’s a giant step backward for this nation.  The second lie is the assertion of “widening inequality” in America.  There’s no basis for such a statement whatsoever.

They also gave a new birth of passion and energy to a civil rights movement that had almost faded into history, and which had been in the throes of a slow comeback since the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012.

There’s a good reason the civil rights movement had almost faded into history, Mr. Demby.  The original civil rights movement wasn’t about insulating blacks from the consequences of their actions, as this new “movement” is.  It was about achieving equality under the law, and that’s been done.  Your problem and the problem in the black community is that equal treatment of minorities doesn’t guarantee equal behavior by minorities.  They commit crimes at a far higher rate than non-minorities, and thus attract greater attention from the police. 

That the nation became riveted to the meta-story of Ferguson—and later the videotaped killing of Eric Garner in New York—was due in large part to the work of a loose but increasingly coordinated network of millennial activists who had been beating the drum for the past few years. In 2014, the new social justice movement became a force that the political mainstream had to reckon with.

For those who may not know it, “social justice” is leftist-speak for legalized theft and special protection from consequences and responsibility.

This re-energized millennial movement, which will make itself felt all the more in 2015, differs from its half-century-old civil rights-era forebear in a number of important ways. One, it is driven far more by social media and hashtags than marches and open-air rallies. Indeed, if you wanted a megaphone for a movement spearheaded by young people of color, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better one than Twitter, whose users skew younger and browner than the general public, which often has the effect of magnifying that group’s broad priorities and fascinations. It’s not a coincidence that the Twitterverse helped surface and magnify the stories of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

In other words, we’d better watch out because the mischievous and misinformed can spread their lies faster and farther than ever before.

Two, the new social-justice grass roots reflects a broader agenda that includes LGBTQ (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-questioning) issues and immigration reform.

Translation:  Gays want their share of the loot too.

The young grass-roots activists I’ve spoken to have a broad suite of concerns: the school-to-prison pipeline, educational inequality, the over-policing of black and Latino communities.

You have to marvel at Mr. Demby’s skill at cramming so much dishonesty into one sentence.  The “school-to-prison pipeline” is a consequence of 50 years of liberal social engineering that’s just done wonderful things for the black community.  Now the Left’s brilliant solution to fixing the mess is to relax the laws and police enforcement in those communities.  In five years they’ll be back to tell us that blacks and Latinos are being neglected by law enforcement, their communities have turned into jungles and it’s all our fault.  Wait for it.

In essence, they’re trying to take on deeply entrenched discrimination that is fueled less by showy bigotry than systemic, implicit biases.

Wrong again, Mr. Demby.  They aren’t taking on any such thing, nor is that their goal because bigotry and bias can’t be cured by marching and threatening.  It can only be cured by demonstrating that these attitudes are based on false impressions.  The truth is that these “activists” are fighting for freedom from all accountability, and they are getting help from the usual suspects, their ever-dependable enablers on the Left. 

Three, the movement’s renewal has exposed a serious generational rift. It is largely a bottom-up movement being led by young unknowns who have rejected, in some cases angrily, the presumption of leadership thrust on them by veteran celebrities like Al Sharpton. While both the younger and older activists both trace their lineage to the civil rights movement, they seem to align themselves with different parts of that family tree. And in several ways, these contemporary tensions are updates of the disagreements that marked the earlier movement.

That’s right, Mr. Demby.  Al Sharpton is not militant or radical enough for these “young unknowns.”  That should alarm you but you’re a clueless leftist, so….

Sarah Jackson, a professor at Northeastern University whose research focuses on social movements, said the civil rights establishment embraces the “Martin Luther King-Al Sharpton model”—which emphasizes mobilizing people for rallies and speeches and tends to be centered around a charismatic male leader. But the younger activists are instead inclined to what Jackson called the “Fannie Lou Hamer-Ella Baker model”—an approach that embraces a grass roots and in which agency is widely diffused. Indeed, many of the activists name-checked Baker, a lesser-known but enormously influential strategist of the civil rights era. She helped found Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference but became deeply skeptical of the cult of personality that she felt had formed around him. And she vocally disagreed with the notion that power in the movement should be concentrated among a few leaders, who tended to be men with bases of power that lay in the church. “My theory is, strong people don’t need strong leaders,” she said.

“My theory is, strong people don’t need strong leaders,” said Baker as they look to her for leadership.

Baker’s theories on participatory democracy were adopted by later social movements, like Occupy Wall Street, which notably resisted naming leaders or spokespeople. But James Hayes, an organizer with the Ohio Student Association, said that he didn’t think of this new social justice movement as “leaderless” in the Occupy style. “I think of it as leader-ful,” he said.

“Participatory democracy” is another leftist term to facilitate the legalization of wealth transfer, because theft by another name apparently helps ease the conscience of the thieves. 

By December, some of these same uncelebrated community organizers who spent the year leading “die-ins,” voting drives and the thousands-deep rallies around the country would meet privately with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. (“We got a chance to really lay it out—we kept it real,” Hayes told me about the meeting. “We were respectful, but we didn’t pull any punches.”) A few days after that White House meeting, Hillary Clinton, widely assumed to be eyeing another bid for the presidency in 2016, nodded to them when she dropped one of the mantras of the demonstrators—“black lives matter”—into a speech at a posh awards ceremony in New York City.

“We were respectful, but we didn’t pull any punches.”  Yeah, they want their money and they want it now, or there’s going to be trouble.  Good thing these “community organizers” have a useful idiot like Hillary Clinton on their side!

All this new energy comes, ironically, as the country’s appetite for fighting racial inequality—never all that robust in the best of times—appears to be ebbing. The tent-pole policy victories of the civil rights movement are even now in retrenchment: 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, American schools—especially in the South—are rapidly resegregating; the Voting Rights Act, which turns 50 in 2015, has been effectively gutted; and, despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act, our neighborhoods are as segregated as ever. Once-narrowing racial gaps in life outcomes have again become gaping chasms.

Yeah, isn’t it “ironic” that our appetite for fighting racial inequality ebbed after the laws were changed to guarantee equal treatment under the law (and in some cases to even provide preferential treatment)?  What an amazing coincidence! 

But what isn’t a coincidence is that the “retrenchment” has come after 50 years of liberal policy that has progressively (no pun intended) turned much of the black community into government-dependent spoiled brats, Mr. Demby.  That’s no surprise at all.

At the same time, the new movement’s emergence has caused friction with the traditional civil rights establishment that identifies with those earlier, historic victories. At a recent march put together by Sharpton’s National Action Network in Washington, D.C.—meant to protest the recent decisions not to indict the officers in several high-profile police-involved killings and push for changes in the protocol from prosecutors—younger activists from St. Louis County were upset at what they saw as a lineup of older speakers on the podium who were not on the ground marching in Ferguson. So they climbed onto the stage and took the mic. “It should be nothing but young people up here!” a woman named Johnetta Elzie yelled into the microphone. “We started this!” Some people cheered them. Others called for them to get off the stage. After a few minutes, the organizers cut off their mics. (In the crowd, someone held up a neon-green sign making their discontent with the march’s organizers plain: “WE, THE YOUTH, DID NOT ELECT AL SHARPTON OUR SPOKESPERSON. HAVE A SEAT.”)

Hahahaha!  The spoiled brats are turning on their plantation masters.  I love it.

A few days later, Elzie downplayed the incident and told me that the disagreement was simply about “someone who doesn’t want to give up the reins and who has a huge platform.”

That’s right, Elzi.  Race hustling is a lucrative and ego-gratifying business.  Sharpton and Jackson and the rest of the original hustlers aren’t going to go away quietly, I’m afraid.

Gene Demby is the lead blogger for NPR's Code Switch team, covering race, ethnicity and culture.

NPR.  That figures.  These are your tax dollars at work, folks. 


Lately when I read articles that attempt to put a credible spin on the Left’s agenda I’ve been taking a little time to peruse the comments posted by readers, and I’m seeing an encouraging trend.  Hopefully it’s not just wishful thinking on my part, but more and more it seems that readers are waking up and soundly rejecting the insanity with comments that reveal genuine disgust.  Writers like Gene Demby, who appear to have cocooned themselves in the world as they would like it to be, would be well-advised to read what their commenters have to say.

~CW


A special thanks to Crawfish for bringing this gem to the attention of Nox & Friends and allowing me the honor of ripping it apart.



84 comments:

  1. 28 [redacted] pages are not about Saudi Arabia

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAjKC0Y6cjA#t=168

    CW, will you still carry water for Israel if/when it comes out that they assisted the 911 terrorists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you showing me some loser bloviating in his PJs about 9-11 as if he if he’s uncovered some smoking gun secret info that proves anything? Shame on me for letting you waste my time. I should have known better

      Any person or country that knowingly assisted with the attacks on 9-11 should be held accountable in every respect no matter who they are. I’m all for de-classifying any info that reveals information essential to understanding the events of 9-11 and who is responsible. Is that clear enough for you or would you like to continue pretending that you’re talking to someone else?

      BTW, the insinuation that the Obama administration refuses to declassify the info in order to protect George Bush from embarrassment or to protect Israel is the usual nonsense of conspiracy nuts. Obama has spent his entire presidency trying to blame, embarrass and marginalize George Bush, so only a loon would conclude that he’s looking out for Bush. And Obama despises Israel and would probably love nothing more than to expose any connection between them and 9-11, so that theory’s down the drain. All you have to do to hook any nutjob who wants to believe what he wants to believe is to dangle some classified info in front of them. It’s like waving a string in front of a cat.

      Delete
    2. LOL…you really are naive aren't you?

      Delete
    3. Let me get this straight. The deluded loser who is transfixed by some know-nothing loser ranting on U-Tube is calling ME naïve. Okie Dokie!

      I think we’re done on this one, Einstein.

      Delete
    4. You realize there are redacted pages from the 911 report, yes…?

      You understand that several congressmen (sworn to secrecy about its specific contents) have read these pages and been shocked at what (evidence of middle-eastern governmentS, alleged U.S. "allies", involvement in the 911 attacks) was in them, yes…?

      You are aware, maybe, of the incredible influence the Israeli govt. and its American-boosters and agents (AIPAC) has on U.S. politics…?

      The official story of 911 is that OBL and Al Qaeda were solely responsible, so why the urge to hide info from the report?

      So please to tell me what "crazy conspiracy theory" Ryan Dawson is peddling?

      The very term "conspiracy theory" is a rhetorical tactic used by weak-minded ideologues to shut down debate/discussion of a topic they find uncomfortable/inconvenient to their world-view--those who push manmade global-warming say the same about skeptics. In your case, you think Israel is a major "Good Guy" (despite tons of evidence to the contrary) so of course you don't wanna consider the possibility that it was involved in 911…however, those of us who are NOT brain-washed Israel-firster neocons know better…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I




      Delete
    5. “Conspiracy theory” is the appropriate term for an UNPROVEN hypothesis that involves the supposed collusion of multiple individuals, you moron. Your obsession with using or avoiding terminology to frame arguments is straight out of the Leftist’s Handbook for Manipulative Argument. It’s what you do when you can’t win an argument on the merits. I watched Dawson’s video. He revealed NOTHING whatsoever that in any way proves anything. I guess in the fantasy world of the anarcho-libertarians mere speculation is sufficient evidence to convict people and Joe-Schmoe musing in his jammies is an expert by virtue of the fact that he knows how to share his opinions on Utube. What a noble system!

      YOU asserted that the 28 redacted pages were not about Saudi Arabia then cited the Utube video as the smoking gun, and of course it turned out to be nothing of the sort. I said I wholeheartedly support declassifying this or any material that shows who was behind the events of 9-11. I’ll let readers decide which one of us is engaging in fantasy to support his worldview.

      Delete
    6. Stop lying about what I said or didn't say…I fully admit that RD (who's put serious time/effort into studying so-called 'conspiracies' and has lots of facts to back up his positions) is engaging in educated speculation…however, once again, it doesn't take an Einstein/genius to make educated guesses about who Bush (the guy y'all Cons elected) was protecting by covering-up important 911 info…

      My guess is that IF its ever revealed that Israel was involved in 911, Israel-firster neocons will either ignore or rationalize it like they do all other acts of espionage/war that Israel has committed against the USA over the decades.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, RD has a lot of facts. He just chooses to leave those out of his video, LOL!

      The “guesses” of brainwashed loon aren’t of much interest to me.

      Delete
    8. "Facts don't matter to ideologues."

      Delete
    9. Are you telling me you're an ideologue?

      Delete
  2. Its ironic that when NYPD officers were shot in retaliation for killing Mr. Brown (a case of someone "exercising their 2nd amendment right in order to fight tyranny"), 'conservatives' (who like to talk about how the 2nd amendment is a guard against tyranny) predictably rallied around the 'heroic' police…

    You boot-lickers don't deserve to have guns and I (not being a gun-owner myself) almost hope a War On Guns would be instigated against y'all in retaliation for your horrific War On Drugs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you blogging while at recess?

      The only tyranny that involved “Mr. Brown” was the tyranny “Mr. Brown” exercised against the shop owner from whom he stole, so killing two cops who had nothing to do with the Brown incident and trying to call that an exercise of the 2nd Amendment in the pursuit of the fight against tyranny is worse than absurd. It’s STUPID and what’s most ironic is that it is completely contrary to the NAP you presumable claim to support. Such abject asininity isn’t even worthy of a response except for the satisfaction of calling you STUPID.

      Delete
    2. I meant Garner…the guy killed by the NYPD for selling cigarettes…rest of my point remains same.

      Delete
    3. Let’s get some clarity on your position. You are OK with the random murder of cops who were in no way associated with the Garner incident. So much for the non-aggression principle, eh?

      What a poser you are.

      Now that we understand each other, I think we’re done with this subject too.

      Delete
    4. Where did I say I supported killing random cops (i.e., occupation soldiers)?

      Yes, of course you're "done"…your authoritarian mindset doesn't allow you consider disobedience or resistance to your State-god.

      Delete
    5. Stop playing games, little boy. You characterized the shooting of the NYPD cops as “a case of someone exercising their 2nd amendment right in order to fight tyranny.” Those were YOUR words and the meaning was quite clear.

      Silliness like referring to police as “occupation soldiers” demonstrates the childish mindset that you subscribe to. Pray tell us what is the anarcho-libertarian’s solution to the problem of the existence of bad people living amongst us? How does the anarcho-libertarian propose to deal with murderers, thieves and rapists? I’m sure everyone would like to know of this great secret you’re keeping.

      Once again you anarchists amuse me. You imagine that everyone else is living in some brainwashed state of government worship and this enables you to believe yourself to be so much smarter and more enlightened, even when reality shows you to be in the very same pickle as everyone else. You have no solution to the inevitable existence of gov’t. NONE. Furthermore you have no solution to the existence of police. If you had you would have shared it a long time ago instead of wasting time with your silly games.

      Delete
    6. I don't know everything like you nor do I have a time-machine like you do, so I can't say for sure how "bad people" will be handled when we transition to a state-less society…I'm sure the free-market will provide amazing alternatives to the current socialist system we have now, again, as history proves socialism isn't a very good system.

      What I DO know from history is that political-power doesn't magically make "human-nature" disappear, it simply legalizes/legitimizes bad behavior and creates perverse incentive-structures. It doesn't take an Einstein/genius to figure this out either...

      Delete
    7. So let’s see, you DO have a time machine to know that the U.S. gov’t can’t last, but you DON’T have a time machine to know that gov’t is inevitable. Heads I win, tails you lose. That’s always your game.

      >>” I'm sure the free-market will provide amazing alternatives…”
      Riddle me this, Einstein: what’s preventing the free market from providing amazing alternatives right now?

      >> What I DO know from history is that political-power doesn't magically make "human-nature" disappear…

      As I said, you’re very selective in what you choose to know and to not know, meaning that you ignore whatever doesn’t fit your fantasy. I’m still waiting to hear what your alternative is. How do you propose to get to a state-less society, Einstein?

      Delete
    8. >>”I can't say for sure how "bad people" will be handled when we transition to a state-less society…”

      LOL!!! So you know how to TAKE the reservation, you just don’t know how to KEEP the reservation. Is that it?

      Wouldn’t you say that answering the question of how the existence of bad, dangerous people would be handled in a stateless society is somewhat important, seeing as how that’s a primary reason for the state’s existence in the first place? If you can’t answer that question (and you can’t) then you can’t get to statelessness. Are you beginning to understand yet why gov’t is inevitable, Einstein?

      Delete
    9. >>what’s preventing the free market from providing amazing alternatives right now?<<

      The same thing that's preventing free-market solutions to things like poverty and education and the same thing that prevented alternatives to harvesting cotton w/o slave-labor--statism. Your rationalization for the state assuming monopoly powers over certain areas is identical to the Progressive rationalization for socialized HC--"if the free-market were so great why has govt. taken over HC?".


      >>How do you propose to get to a state-less society<<

      The 1st step is admitting (similar to a drug-addict or alcoholic admitting he has a problem) the reality of the current situation (we exist in a state of political slavery in which nation-states are effectively plantations) and abandoning bad ideas like "we are the govt", "constitutionalism/republicanism", and the ridiculous notion that political-power solves problems. After this humanity must learn to rise up off of its knees from before its State-god.


      "Conservatives hate socialism, that's why they think only the MOST IMPORTANT functions in society should be socialized."-- The Bad Quaker

      Delete
    10. How well did 'our' trillion$ intelligence and military services do in protecting us from "bad people" on 911? What was the Con response to this govt. failure? WE NEED MORE GOVT!

      How well did France protect "its people" from the most recent terrorist attack there?

      How well did the Iraqi govt. do in dealing w/the "bad people" from the USA who aggressed against it?

      How well did the Low Countries, France, etc. do in protecting against "bad people" from NAZI Germany and, for that matter, how well did NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan do in protecting against the "bad people" from the USA and Co. who devastated the people and property of those nations?

      You act as if the existence of a state somehow magically means you're safe from aggression...and I suspect that if my answer to your Q doesn't involve an absolute guarantee of 100% safety from aggression and a utopian society you'll reject it as "not good enough" or "unworkable".

      I will say that in a free-society there won't be nearly as many restrictions against arming yourself against "bad people" like what our 'great protector' does now to ensure good people are disarmed and at the mercy of bad people who simply ignore gun-control laws and/or realize that weaker people (esp. women and children) can be physically overpowered w/o worrying if they're packing iron. Ironic that you're defending a system which actually ENCOURAGES bad people to attack good people...

      "The perfect is the enemy of the best." -- Unknown

      Delete
    11. Well, maybe you can explain to me how capitalism can produce a perfect HC system…I mean, there's a reason socialized medicine exists and is so popular, right?

      Its funny that you once again censored a post which tore up your claim that "the state deals w/bad people"…that's the benefit of having your own echo-chamber/blog--you can delete inconvenient facts...

      Delete
    12. >>”The same thing that's preventing free-market solutions to things like poverty…”

      Well you get partial credit. Both the free market and freedom in government are impeded by progressivism, but you’re trying to compare apples and oranges. By definition, the theory of the free market applies to TRADE. In a free market system the right to engage freely in trade is assumed. In the struggle over the selection of government (or non-government), there is no consensus about rights. That’s WHY the struggle exists.



      >>”The 1st step is admitting (similar to a drug-addict or alcoholic admitting he has a problem) the reality of the current situation…”

      There’s another faulty analogy. A drug addict or alcoholic presumably has control over his situation. It is only his own behavior that stands in the way of recovery, and the assumption of free will is an essential aspect of escaping the situation. The cooperation of those living around them isn’t necessary to resolving their problem. None of that applies when it comes to government. You talk about “humanity” learning to rise up of its knees. Humanity is not a single entity and people do not act in unison. Humans compete for power and for resources, and that competition is what drives the existence of government. So your “1st step” is meaningless. What else you got?


      “Libertarians love freedom, as long as it only applies to them.” -- CW

      Delete
    13. >>” How well did 'our' trillion$ intelligence and military services do in protecting us from "bad people" on 911?”

      So because military spending/preparedness does not or cannot prevent all attacks you assume it’s all worthless? Talk about a “perfect is the enemy of good” mentality! Do you lock the doors on your car when you park somewhere and leave the car? If someone breaks a window and gets in anyway, will you stop locking the car because it didn’t stop EVERY thief? Dumb.


      >>”You act as if the existence of a state somehow magically means you're safe from aggression…”

      And you act as if there is a choice between state and no state, which there is not because government (and therefore the state) is inevitable.

      BTW, please point to what I said that in any way suggests that I think the state “magically means I’m safe from aggression.” I never said or implied any such thing, so that’s just another one of your straw men.

      “A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.” -- RationalWiki

      Delete
    14. Its simply your OPINION that the state will exist forever, you can assert this a million times and try to predict the future based on looking backwards all you like, but that STILL doesn't make it a fact…I'm sure people once thought there'd always be Pharaohs and Kings too...just like its only the OPINION of Left-wing Progs that only govt. can provide HC, just as its the OPINON of Right-wing Progs that only govt. can provide defense/courts and should define marriage (ha, THAT one didn't work out too well for y'all did it?).

      My point was that the existence of a State doesn't guarantee security from bad guys and history has shown that its been States themselves which have allowed bad guys to do the most damage to society…how well did the German State, under Hitler, protect Jews from bad guys and how well has the American State protected YOU from Left-wing Progs who want to tax/regulate you into oblivion and have also effectively disarmed you and left you defenseless against street-thugs? When you ask how the free-market will protect you from bad guys who want to loot or hurt you you're implying that the State (which, in our 'free' society, loots society of about 50% of its productivity) does a good job of this now, but it does not.

      And, 911 demonstrated the perversity of socialism/statism in that the FAILURE of a near TRILLION$/annum security apparatus to prevent 19 (!) BOX-CUTTER wielding punks from delivering a devastating blow (w/the probable assistance of "our good friends" the Saudis and/or Israelis) lead to…calls (from BOTH Left and Right-wing Progs) for MORE funding and expansion of the SAME agencies (and even the creation of NEW socialist agencies!!!) which FAILED. Not to mention that the reaction to 911 has been FAR more injurious to Americans in every way than the attacks themselves.

      Who, at the top, was held accountable for this MASSIVE security FAILURE? No one! In fact CIC Bush, who presided over this failure, was hailed as a heroic leader (at the time) and RE-ELECTED by Cons! How many Cons have questioned the failed and idiotic foreign-policy of interventionism and alliance-ism (something which even the 'founders' warned against, but which "Constitutional Conservatives" utterly ignore) which led to 911? Not many I've seen…in fact, y'all supported DOUBLING-DOWN on failure and the invasion of "The Graveyard Of Empires"…and from what I see y'all STILL support a never-ending WOT...not very bright…but that's where we are currently as a society.

      Delete
    15. LOL…one could spend all day going through your writing and pointing out all the logical fallacies…your commitment to logic isn't very consistent.

      If you truly think there is "no choice" between a state and no state I wonder how you explain the brave Muslim Militiamen in Iraq-Af who said "no" to the overwhelming military might of the American state…? And neocon clowns actually BELIEVED American occupation troops would be welcomed as 'liberators' and that dropping bombs on wedding parties could transform the middle-east into a Western-style democracy…talk about insanity!

      I appreciate you calling me a genius, but sadly I'm not. However there ARE libertarian geniuses like Murray Rothbard and Hans Herman-Hoppe who've responded to socialists (on both the Left and Right) who think only govt. can provide certain essential services:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10uCz5hhSSw&list=PLBD6EC8BF3D7777F3

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSvw3nX7i9E

      Delete
    16. >>"Well, maybe you can explain to me how capitalism can produce a perfect HC system…"

      I would define the perfect healthcare system as the system that satisfactorily responds to the health needs of customers when the economic incentive is there to do so. Barring interference from the socialist thieves, we have such a system already. Others may define “perfect healthcare” as affordable access for everyone, but that’s not a question of healthcare it’s a question of economics. In any event since we both understand that socialized medicine is theft by means of the government I assume that what you really want to know is how we prevent this theft (and what amounts to slavery in the end) given the natural inclination some people have for stealing. You would suggest, I’m sure, that the answer is to rid ourselves of gov’t, but as I’ve explained many times now, that’s not happening, and so far you haven’t been able to refute that. So what’s my solution? For starters people need to be educated on what socialism is. Forced “sharing” or forced “spreading the wealth” is legalized theft. Theft denotes that there is a victim. Politicians, even those on the Right, don’t talk about socialism this way. They talk about “economic unsustainability,” as if theft is okay as long as it’s economically viable. That makes me very angry, of course. The Left has made it morally acceptable to steal. The only possible solution that I know is to educate people and to keep leftists out of gov’t. Am I optimistic? Nope.

      I don’t know what comment you think I “censored,” and the idea that you “tore me up” in any respect is laughable. This blog exists for my benefit, not yours. If you want free reign to post whatever nonsense you like get your own blog.

      Delete
    17. Like I said before, you thought history was a good enough reason to predict the eventual collapse of the U.S. gov’t, but apparently you don’t care about history when it interferes with your fantasy of statelessness. So much for “logic and reason.”

      No, it is not the opinion of progressives that only gov’t can provide HC. The goal of progressives is to transfer wealth and that is the one and only reason for their drive to make it a gov’t function.

      >>”…its the OPINON of Right-wing Progs that only govt. can provide defense/courts and should define marriage (ha, THAT one didn't work out too well for y'all did it?).”

      You’re more than welcome to explain to me how stateless individuals would defend themselves and their land in the event of aggression from organized foreign entities, since you’re so much more clever than everyone else in the world has ever been. By all means, please do. While you’re at maybe you can explain to me, in a privately run court system, what compels someone to submit to the court process if he doesn’t want to. The last anarchist couldn’t answer that question and coincidentally he was a genius just like you. As for gov’t-defined marriage not working out, who do you think is defining marriage now?

      >>”the existence of a State doesn't guarantee security from bad guys and history has shown that its been States themselves which have allowed bad guys to do the most damage to society…”

      And yet the state is going to exist. What now, Batman?

      Regarding 9-11, again your logic seems to be that since we didn’t prevent this attack we shouldn’t bother defending ourselves at all. If you bother to lock your own doors at night then you’ve already blown your own argument out of the water. And I’m done with reminding you that ’04 was a contest between Bush and John Kerry. You prefer John Kerry? That’s your problem.


      >>” If you truly think there is "no choice" between a state and no state I wonder how you explain the brave Muslim Militiamen in Iraq-Af who said "no" to the overwhelming military might of the American state…?”

      Talk about a non sequitur! What does that fight have to do with the state vs. the non-state??? Those “brave Muslim Militiamen” are fighting to preserve their own right to dominate and tyrannize,you’re your heroes would just as soon behead you as look at you. What an idiot you are.

      >>” I appreciate you calling me a genius, but sadly I'm not.”

      No kidding, really? LOL, “Einstein!”

      Delete
    18. I can't refute an unprovable assertion (your OPINION that a politically-empowered master-class of humans will always exist).

      I'd be satisfied if we could ever get back to a reasonable version of a "Night Watchman State" instead of our current combination of Con/Daddy+Lib/Mommy hellhole of Progressive busybody moral-crusaders and do-gooders. However, since the form of statism favored by Cons/Libs is fundamentally socialist in nature and since socialism always creates perverse incentives which lead to economic and societal failure, I understand this is a pipe-dream.

      On 911: Once again I'll simply point out the reality of the inability of the giant, socialist Security/Warfare boondoggle favored by Cons to prevent 19 box-cutter wielding punks (tho I do probably have to give "our good friends" the Saudis and Israelis some credit too) from pulling off the most successful terrorist attack in U.S. history…socialist failure was rewarded and praised by people (Republican-voters) who claim to be opposed to socialism. Can you imagine a CEO of a private security firm which failed this massively being hailed as a "heroic leader" who prevented the USA from being overrun by "the Islams"--like Cons praised GWB? Can you imagine this private firm having its coffers flooded w/more money from its customers after such an incredible failure (BOX-CUTTERS, LMFAO!!!)--like what happened w/the govt.'s security apparatus? Can you imagine this private firm's customers giving these incompetent buffoons BROAD NEW SECURITY POWERS over their operations--like what the "small-govt." GOP majority did post-911 by passing the 'Patriot' Act, creating DHS, and assuming yet more power over the airline industry? You can't grasp the point I'm making because you're a defense socialist who will never admit your socialist system failed…"The Perfect is the enemy of the Best".

      The American electorate lives in a strange Bizzarro World where a radical difference exists between a Progressive like Bush or Reagan or Romney and a Progressive like Kerry or Carter or Obama just because of the "R" or "D" next to their name…and its not like there's any evidence that electing Republicans (remind me, again, what great strides towards increased liberty and small-govt. they accomplished w/their powerful majority of the early-mid 2000's) has ever helped anything (Cons simply like their Progressivism w/a GOP flavoring, lol)…as a libertarian looking into your Bizzarro World from the outside I look forward to American Idiocrats being knocked on their keisters by reality.

      To end on a positive note and in the interests of spreading usable knowledge I'll pass this on to you (or maybe you've heard of it already):

      An Affordable Alternative to Obamacare with Self-Pay and Health Sharing!

      http://lionsofliberty.com/health/

      http://www.libertyhealthshare.org

      Delete
    19. >>You’re more than welcome to explain to me how stateless individuals would defend themselves and their land in the event of aggression from organized foreign entities, since you’re so much more clever than everyone else in the world has ever been.<<

      Once again I'll refer you to Mr.'s Rothbard and Hoppe…true geniuses. You're also free to explain how organized domestic entities (i.e., states) are any less a threat to state-individuals and their property as those of the foreign variety are…LOL, if stateless individuals were conquered by a foreign-state what awful things do you think would happen to them? Would they have an income-tax imposed upon them? Or a feudal-type property-tax? 1000's of excise taxes? Sales taxes on everything they buy? Burdened w/1000's upon 1000's upon 1000's of onerous regulations? Forced to seek state licensure and/or serial # in order to be allowed to make a living and/or travel? Or be compelled to use a state court monopoly which is allegedly 'neutral' but which is state-funded and staffed w/state-appointees and really exists to enforce state policies? Forced to send their children to state schools? Be disarmed? Groped and/or strip-searched by state agents who have a monopoly on airline security? Killed or imprisoned for non-compliance w/state directives? Sounds awful…thank goodness we have a domestic state to protect us from a foreign one, LOL...

      >>While you’re at maybe you can explain to me, in a privately run court system, what compels someone to submit to the court process if he doesn’t want to. The last anarchist couldn’t answer that question and coincidentally he was a genius just like you.<<

      No amount of explaining how a free-market in any particular field is morally and economically superior will ever convince a committed socialist to change his mind…that goes for Right-wing Socialists as well as Left-wing Socialists alike. However, once again, you're free to explore the ideas of freedom-oriented intellectuals as far as these areas are concerned and Google is at your fingertips as well.

      >>As for gov’t-defined marriage not working out, who do you think is defining marriage now?<<

      LOL, I meant how well did this work out for moral-crusading Cons who spent 10's of MILLION$ forcing this issue because they thought the "conservative" scotus (same Con court which found ACA to be constitutional, lmfao) would deliver them a crushing victory over the "home-sexshuls" but whom, instead, had the issue blow-up right in their faces and whom now face the inevitable spread of legalized gay-marriage--even into the Bible Belt! I don't like people being forced to recognize any particular type of marriage as legally valid, but must say its Poetic Justice that Right-wing Progs who tried to shove their opinion down everyone's throat will now have an opinion they find disgusting being shoved down theirs instead.

      Delete
    20. >>>”I can't refute an unprovable assertion (your OPINION that a politically-empowered master-class of humans will always exist).”

      I just find it funny that you were very willing to accept the “educated guess” of Ryan Dawson when it reinforced your prejudices against the Bush administration; but when I make an educated guess that gov’t will always exist based on the fact that every society in written history has had a gov’t and based on the struggles for power that we see occurring all around the globe, suddenly unless I can show you the future in a crystal ball you can’t be persuaded.

      >>”I'd be satisfied if we could ever get back to a reasonable version of a "Night Watchman State" …”

      I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad philosophy (unfeasible perhaps, but not bad). Ironically the last min-archist that I debated declared – after calling me every name in the book – that he didn’t really have a problem with the Constitution per se.

      >>”On 911: …………You can't grasp the point I'm making because you're a defense socialist who will never admit your socialist system failed…"The Perfect is the enemy of the Best". “

      And we now return to your regularly scheduled lunacy. (If there is one thing I’ve learned about anarchist hybrids it’s that their rational moments are fleeting).

      9-11 was a catastrophic failure, there’s no doubt about that, but I don’t understand your obsessive need to lay all of the blame on GWB, except to assume that like the rabid Left you see it as a means to a political end. That’s a deplorable attitude but people’s consciences today (or should I say the absence of them) are sickeningly lacking, and in my experience min-archists are no exception. I voted for Bush in the general, not in the primary. I thought he was a bad choice for POTUS, as I think Obama is a horrible choice; but being a fair-minded person I like to think that I can still look at their actions with some objectivity. The security failures that led to the success of the 9-11 terrorists were long in the making, and they were the fault of multiple people at all levels across multiple administrations. The people in the FBI who were warned of suspicious events and who didn’t act on those tips should have been fired. The people who’ve erected barriers to scrutinizing the actions of foreigners (i.e. the ACLU types, whom I assume you support) should have been removed from positions of influence within our gov’t and called on the carpet before congress. But the fact that people would have been caught off guard is hardly the smoking gun you think it is. We all know that each of us is vulnerable to attack from all types of criminals every day, and yet despite this knowledge and the repeated warnings to be careful even people who are reasonably cautious become victims. The attacker always has the advantage of surprise, especially when people are accustomed to living safely. Even veteran cops trained to deal with attackers are caught off guard. GWB ran for re-election against John Kerry. If your complaint with GW is that 9-11 occurred on his watch, do you REALLY think Kerry would have been done any better? This is the Bozo who’s using the office of Sec’y of State to combat global warming, for god’s sake. And as for gov’t overreach following 9-11, that’s a fair enough complaint; but a reasonable person would at least concede that those charged with the conflicting goals of protecting civil liberties AND preventing future attacks faced difficult choices.

      Delete
    21. >>”The American electorate lives in a strange Bizzarro World…”

      A luxury once tried becomes a necessity, and that applies to socialism as it expands to every aspect of our lives. The Left fully understands this, which is why Obama has frantically worked to expand socialism under his watch as quickly as he can (I think he’s somewhere trying to sell socialized community college right now). People who consider themselves “conservative” see nothing wrong with Social Security or Medicare. They’re drunk on it. That is the challenge of any politician who happens to be a true conservative (the few that there are). If they talk about getting rid of these programs they have no hope of being elected. You tell me what the solution is to that, keeping in mind that gov’t is going to exist. You have to change people’s mindsets, and neither Ron Paul (because he’s hopelessly ineffective at explaining things) nor you (because you waste all your time talking smack) have any hope of doing that.

      >>”An Affordable Alternative to Obamacare with Self-Pay and Health Sharing!”

      Gee, thanks. Do you get a kickback or something?

      Delete
    22. Oh I’m sorry. I assumed that since you’d studied the philosophy of minarchism so extensively that you might be able to sum it for me. Should I assume that since you referred me to Rothbard and Hoppe that you don’t understand it yourself? Is it really all that complicated? And once again your complaints about The State delusionally assumes that the alternative is to just get rid of The State. You’re like a guy in a lifeboat who keeps ridiculing the people trying to keep it afloat, while your solution is to sprout wings and fly.

      >>: No amount of explaining how a free-market in any particular field is morally and economically superior will ever convince a committed socialist to change his mind…that goes for Right-wing Socialists as well as Left-wing Socialists alike.”

      Nice copout. I’ll take that as proof that you have no idea how to answer my question. The last minarchist at least gave it the old college try.

      >> I don't like people being forced to recognize any particular type of marriage as legally valid, but must say its Poetic Justice that Right-wing Progs who tried to shove their opinion down everyone's throat…”

      One day a man was driving through a rough part of town. When he came to a stop light in a deserted area, he was suddenly accosted by hoodlums looking to have a little fun. The hoods ordered him to get out of his car. One of them drew a circle in the dirt on the ground some distance from the car and ordered the him to stand in the circle. As he stood there, watching them, the hoods began to trash his car. Using baseball bats and crow bars they smashed the windows and the headlights. When they looked over to see the man’s reaction, they were surprised to find him laughing. “You think that’s funny?” they said. “Watch this!” And with that they proceeded to deflate all the tires and pummel the hood and sides. Happy with their work they turned to see the effect and were again surprised to find him laughing. Getting angry, they decided to leave no part of the car unscathed, and they tore into it with a vengeance. When the car was destroyed they turned again, only to find the man doubled over with laughter. “Hey man,” one of them yelled. “We just destroyed your ride. What the hell you laughing at?” to which the man replied, “Well...when you weren’t looking, I stepped out of the circle THREE times!!”

      The jokes on you and you don’t even know it, dude.

      Delete
  3. One wonders why 'real' conservatives keep on electing GOPers who continue funneling billion$ and billion$ to the same Progressive institutions (K-12 schools, universities, NPR, 'civil-rights' enforcement, etc.) they rail against in rants like this one…talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says the genius who’s done nothing to stop it and who’s in the very same boat as the rest of us.

      Delete
    2. Looks like Romney is running again…along w/yet another Bush...you people just can't get enough of these Country Clubbers can you?

      Delete
    3. So says the libertarian for Obama. I guess Obama is no country clubber, lol.

      Delete
  4. Hmmm…I criticize the 'founders' and 'conservatives' and the writer of this blog is fine w/it, but…I float the idea that Israel was complicit in the 911 attacks and I'm suddenly censored…interesting...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, you’re on to me, Einstein! I guess I didn’t get up early enough to fool a genius like you.

      I’m still waiting for you to respond to my challenges from the last post. Don’t come back until you do.

      Delete
  5. You seem to have an inability to answer straight-forward Q's, but I'll try again:

    Do you and your fellow neocons really believe that the USGovt. will be the first empire in history to not collapse under its own weight (such as what happened to the Roman and the English Empires)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no delusions about the lasting power of the U.S. gov’t but its collapse will not be due to its “own weight” as you ignorantly suggest but the weight imposed by liberalism. If I give you directions to get somewhere and you get lost because you didn’t follow the directions, that’s not the fault of the directions. You talk about what a genius you are but you don’t seem to understand that no government can survive if the will of the people is not there to uphold it and yet GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO EXIST. That’s the paradox, Einstein. Just look at the irony of your question, fool. You assume that because gov’ts have always collapsed eventually ours will as well. Why would you make that assumption? Is it because history is known to repeat itself and history repeats itself because of human nature? That’s funny, because when I tell you that gov’t is inevitable based on what we know from history and human nature you keep insisting that history means nothing. So which is it, Einstein? Does history predict the future or doesn’t it?

      I’m deleting the rest of your nonsense because it’s the same old thing: a bunch of unsupported, self-serving claims that I’m not willing to waste my time on. Calling conservatives brain-washed war-lovers while asserting that libertarians are enlightened freedom lovers is your unsubstantiated opinion, not worth the air its written on. When I make a claim I take the time to lay out an argument and I invite those who disagree to make reasonable counter arguments. Silly name-calling doesn’t qualify. Either make a grown-up case to prove your claims or peddle your bullshit somewhere else, little boy.

      Delete
    2. I never claimed to be a genius, just someone w/an accurate model of reality.

      Cons love war…thats just a fact…what other reason is there for y'all to support a 'defense' budget of nearly $1 TRILLION per year?

      I don't think you understand what "argument" means...

      Delete
    3. Libertarians are pacifists who don’t care about defending themselves. What other reason is there for y’all to support the dismantling of our military?

      You see, we can both play that game, if games are what you’re interested in. I’m not.

      And BTW, you did claim to be a genius so stop re-writing history.

      Delete
    4. Except that Cons generally DO support a near-trillion$/annum military budget (despite it making zero logical sense from either a fiscal or strategic perspective) and libertarians (whether minarchist or anarchist) AREN'T generally pacifists…but yeah, besides these little factoids, sure you can "play that game" too I guess…

      Delete
    5. And so the pattern continues. I refute your claim, and the claim suddenly changes. That’s the tell-tale sign of someone who knows his argument can’t hold water. You said, AND I QUOTE: “Cons love war…thats just a fact…” What happened, Einstein? Did my calling you a pacifist suddenly make you realize the folly of declaring something a fact that isn’t a fact? You argue like a child (can’t have a BB gun and suddenly your parents “HATE” you. Remember those days?).

      Let’s examine your reasoning: “…what other reason is there for y'all to support a 'defense' budget of nearly $1 TRILLION per year?”

      If you shell out $500 a month for health insurance does that mean you love going to the doctor, Einstien? You spend money on things like health insurance, car insurance, etc., because you want to be protected. The same logic applies to defense spending, genius. Now, if you want to argue that $1 trillion is too much, fair enough. We can have that discussion if you think you’re qualified (I’ll admit that I’m not qualified to say precisely how much we need to spend); but you’re not interested in that kind of grown-up discussion because then you lose the high ground (it’s a phony high ground but you like it anyway) of declaring that all conservatives “love war.”

      Delete
    6. Bottom line is that Cons DO support a massive warfare-state…and the ONLY reason to have a military like the USA currently has is to be able to "project power". This makes sense if you take a perverse pride in "national greatness", are a defense contractor looking for corporate welfare, a pork-loving congressman who wants tax-dollars to flow into his district, or an insane policy-maker who wants to be able to play god…military-spending is basically a Conservative-flavored govt. jobs-program.

      I've tried to have adult discussions about 'defense' spending w/cons in the past, but most of them think we'd be invaded by the likes of N. Korea or Iran w/o $100's of billions in 'defense' spending. Con ideologues aren't very good at honest risk-assessment.

      Delete
    7. I support being militarily prepared. Not being so invites aggression, just like the knowledge or assumption that individuals are weak or unarmed makes them targets of aggression on an individual scale. History has shown this to be true time and time again. What’s required for us to be prepared depends on what threats are currently out there, and probably no two people will completely agree on the measure of the threats or what the best strategy is for being prepared. Such is life. Do people take advantage of the military system for their own gain? Of course, and they should be harshly dealt with. But if you’re suggesting that we have no military and de-arm ourselves as a nation then you’re a silly fool.

      I don’t believe that you’ve ever tried to have an adult discussion about anything, at least that’s been my experience with you. Suggesting that people who believe in being militarily prepared “love war” is not an adult attitude, it’s childish. The ONLY reason that the idea of being “invaded” by N. Korea or Iran seems ridiculous to you is PRECISELY due to the extent of our military strength, so you are defeated by your own argument already. Since you suggest that “cons” aren’t good at risk assessment, why don’t you tell me what you genius minilibs have in mind for ensuring your own protection from aggression when you reside in the state of statelessness. I can’t wait to hear this.

      Delete
    8. Yes, but what does "militarily prepared" entail? IMO a nation of 70-80 million private gun-owners w/a nuke arsenal of 1000's of warheads, surrounded by two oceans and bordered by two militarily weak and generally friendly nations doesn't exactly have much to worry about as far as foreign invasion goes.

      What I get from history is that nations that go looking for trouble (like the USA) find it and those that don't (like Switzerland) don't.

      On N. Korea (which, insanely, the USA provided nuke technology to…call me crazy, but I don't think this made us any safer) and Iran: this is what kills me about Cons (foreign-policy geniuses who thought Iraq-Af was a great idea)…it isn't our trillion$ security apparatus that prevents us from being conquered by the likes of impoverished and backwards 3rd-world nations, its economic and strategic reality that does. I'm not sure what alternate reality Cons live in where a NK or Iran or even a Russia or China is able to mount a seaborne invasion of the USA…but you guys must be smoking some GOOD sh*t!

      When Donald Rumsfeld announced (on 09-10-2001, LOL, what a coincidence) that the Pentagon 'lost' 2 TRILLION friggin $$$…where were Cons and their concern for strict accountability? Seems to me that this should've prompted calls to drastically CUT the Pentagon's budget, but no…Right-wing Progs demanded MORE 'defense' dollars. As Ron Paul said, Cons can't conceive of cutting the Pentagon's budget by even a single cent. Socialism is perverse…failure is rewarded and success punished...

      I can't help but wonder if Cons are engaged in psychological projection as far as 'defense' and worrying about foreign boogeymen go…since y'all support a very aggressive military posture and don't particularly see anything wrong w/attacking and otherwise meddling w/other nations I suspect you think everyone else in the world wants to do this to you.

      As I said, I think Con ideas about 'defense' has everything to do w/"national greatness" and very little to do w/an adequate nat'l defense.

      Delete
    9. >>”IMO [the U.S.] doesn't exactly have much to worry about as far as foreign invasion goes.”

      As you said, that’s your opinion. Is it ok with you if someone else has a different opinion? I mean, I know you’re an expert on national defense and all…

      >>”What I get from history is that nations that go looking for trouble (like the USA) find it and those that don't (like Switzerland) don't. “

      So you don’t think nations that mind their own business ever become targets of aggression? Sounds like you’d better go back to history class.

      >>”I'm not sure what alternate reality Cons live in where a NK or Iran or even a Russia or China is able to mount a seaborne invasion of the USA…but you guys must be smoking some GOOD sh*t!”

      As I indicated in my piece on libertarianism, your arrogance is as mind-boggling as it is unjustified. I doubt that you’re qualified to speak with any authority on what the capabilities of these other nations are, or what possible threats they might pose, and you’ve demonstrated a shameful lack of narrow-mindedness when it comes to any information or perspective that might conflict with your preferred worldview.

      Delete

    10. >>”When Donald Rumsfeld announced (on 09-10-2001, LOL, what a coincidence) that the Pentagon 'lost' 2 TRILLION friggin $$$…where were Cons and their concern for strict accountability? Seems to me that this should've prompted calls to drastically CUT the Pentagon's budget, but no…”

      People who get all of their information from agenda-driven internet sites should really verify the info before they presume to bloviate. In the speech you’re referring to Rumsfeld was denouncing the Pentagon bureaucracy and the antiquated accounting practices that made them unable to track more than two trillion dollars in transactions. He never said the money was ‘lost,’ as your quotation marks falsely imply (seems you can never bring yourself to debate what people actually said). Here’s the actual quote:

      “The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.”

      He also said:

      “In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.”

      And:

      “Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.”

      And:

      “We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us.”

      The year that Rumsfeld’s speech was made U.S. military spending totaled about $308 - $335 Billion (depending on what source you believe), and that would have made it less than 16% of total spending. Now without sitting down and carefully evaluating all of the spending (of which I don’t doubt there was great waste), I can’t presume to say how reasonable that level of spending was; however, when you consider that the PRIMARY function of our gov’t is supposed to be national defense if there is any place that our gov’t SHOULD be spending money, this is it.


      >>”I can't help but wonder…” Blah, blah, blah.

      Who really gives a crap about the self-serving wonderings of a narrow-minded, dishonest, brainwashed “min-archist” who believes everything he reads without questioning it? Not me.

      Delete
    11. LOL…yes, because "can't track $2 trillion" is so much better than "lost $2 trillion"…

      So, even after Rumsfeld reveals how terribly bureaucratic and wasteful the Pentagon is, its budget STILL got dramatically raised to the cheers of cons!

      Do you really think the USGovt. has to spend as much on 'defense' as the rest of the world does to keep us safe? Policy is more important to defense than the amount of $$$ spent on it…going around the world brutalizing millions of people, propping up unpopular regimes w/billion$ and military aid/support, a senseless and unnecessary system of alliances w/dozens of other nations, deploying the military overseas instead of here at home, antagonizing Russia and China, and playing king-maker in places like the Ukraine (SO essential to our nat'l defense, LOL) creates enemies and the strong possibility of retaliatory-attacks. None of this makes us any safer, but its great for those who like "nat'l greatness" and profit from all the $100's of billions in govt. 'defense' largesse.

      Am I really arrogant or ignorant for pointing out facts like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, friendly and militarily weak Canada and friendly and militarily weak Mexico? 70-80 million gun owners? 1000's of nuke warheads? My opinion about the USA being incredibly safe and insulated from foreign-invasion is pretty sound…and it doesn't take a military genius to look at the economic capacities of Iran and N. Korea, even Russia and China, to realize that the idea of them sailing an invasion force of the MILLIONS it would take to subdue the USA across 10,000 miles of ocean (while being at risk of nuclear annihilation, submarines, long-range anti-ship missiles, etc.) is about as ridiculous as it gets.

      Hell, impoverished Iran could put a serious hurting on the USA's fleet in the Persian Gulf if it so chose…Russia and China who both spend FRACTIONS of the USA's defense budget could defeat the USA's obsolete (yet still best in the world by a long shot) surface navy in a fight near their coasts even w/o resorting to nukes (its called 21st-century technological progress in missile systems defeating the WWII-era carrier battle group)…but you're seriously suggesting the USA is even remotely at risk of being conquered from…who again?

      Delete
    12. >>”LOL…yes, because "can't track $2 trillion" is so much better than "lost $2 trillion"…”

      The truth is exposed by your actions. If the difference is so laughable, why bother re-phrasing what he actually said? BTW, I can’t track you. Does that mean you’re lost?

      You’re simplistic summary and view of world politics is why people like you aren’t taken seriously, and the answer to your question is YES, you are arrogant. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that since so many others from current and past generations along with people around the globe believe it’s wise to have a certain level of preparedness that maybe you should find out what makes them think so. You just dismiss them ALL as being less intelligent or blinded by nationalism.

      And your reasoning is so deliciously ironic. You sneeringly deride those who are for a strong military because our military strength keeps our weaker enemies at bay. I’d do a post on this but people would think I made it up.

      Delete
    13. Like I said before, its impossible to have an intelligent discussion about "nat'l defense" w/Cons who believe North Korea and Iran would invade us if the govt. didn't spend $100's of BILLIONS/year on the military…and, sadly in the Bizzarro World in which we live, people who believe insane things like you (N. KOREA and IRAN!!!) and whom supported the Iraq-Af disasters ARE still "taken seriously"…predictably you focused on semantics rather than the meat of my post.

      One wonders what you'd say if the Dept. of Health and Human Services admitted to being "unable to track" a sum as big as the one the Pentagon admitted to…my guess is that you wouldn't be playing semantic games...

      Delete
    14. I always love how leftists and libertarians suddenly resent the focus on semantics after THEY used semantics to set the argument up in their favor. That’s really precious.

      Semantics matter. You proved this yourself by repeatedly tweaking or altering what other people have said in order to help your own argument. The power of semantics is why Barack Obama uses the word “invest” instead of “spend,” or “revenues” instead of “taxes,” and it’s why you took a page from Obama’s book and traded the word “lost” for “cannot track.” If you’re so confident in the “meat” of your post, you wouldn’t bother with this game of misquoting people and if you don’t like being called on it, quit doing it. As to my addressing the “meat” of post, here’s what you said:

      “When Donald Rumsfeld announced (on 09-10-2001, LOL, what a coincidence) that the Pentagon 'lost' 2 TRILLION friggin $$$…where were Cons and their concern for strict accountability? Seems to me that this should've prompted calls to drastically CUT the Pentagon's budget, but no…”

      In other words, you were deriding conservatives for their lack of concern about accountability by citing a speech in which A CONSERVATIVE was MAKING THE CASE for changing the system to provide accountability as well as to improve efficiency. Do you not see the irony in that? That was why I gave you excerpts from the speech that you like to misquote but apparently have never read. Furthermore, you made a big point of citing the date (9-10-11), but then you seem oddly mystified that conservatives didn’t demand a cut in the Pentagon’s budget even when you know that we were attacked just ONE DAY later. Oh I know you’ve got some lunatic’s theory about how the speech was perfectly timed supposedly so that Rumsfeld could confess to “losing” trillions of dollars on a day when he knew we were about to be attacked, but of course that ludicrous theory is blown away by the fact that Rumsfeld did NOT claim the money was “lost” as well as by the fact that the antiquated accounting systems he complained about were not exactly a big secret. All conspiracy nonsense aside, calling for a cut in military spending immediately following 9-11 would have been strange timing indeed.

      The absence of accountability and history of misspending in this or any other agency of gov’t are reasonable criticisms and I’m angry too, but a rational person asks questions in the right order:

      1. Is the U.S. gov’t a legitimate gov’t?
      Answer: Yes.

      2. Is military spending a legitimate function of that gov’t?
      Answer: Yes.

      3. How much should the gov’t spend on the military?
      Answer: That depends on multiple factors such as what the assessed risks are, what level of preparedness is desired and what a nation can afford. These factors are, naturally and of course, very debatable. Reasonable people (i.e. NOT idiot-mitten anarchists) should sit down and debate based on facts and truths, and in the end it will still be a guessing game that leaves some people unsatisfied.

      4. If money is being misspent does that mean it should be cut?
      The answer depends on whether the goal of the budget is being met. If I give you $100 and tell you to go buy me a new tire and you spend the money on a new steering wheel instead, do I help myself by cutting the budget to $50 even though I still don’t have a tire? A reasonable person would find out what went wrong in the process before depriving themselves of the tire they may need, but then I think we’ve pretty much established that you are not a reasonable person.

      You keep talking about the “insane” notions of being “invaded” by N.K. or Iran, which is yet another straw man. Did Japan INVADE us when they attacked Pearl Harbor? Did the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 INVADE us? The threat of invasion is not the only danger that exists, but once again I find myself engaged in the folly of trying to rationally discuss serious matters with someone who is irrationally blinded by his own precious prejudices.

      Delete
  6. CW, when you and your fellow 'real' Cons can work up the gumption to oppose the Communist Manifesto (you know, things like the progressive income tax) get back to us libertarians…because we sure could use some help...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At 8:36 p.m. you tell me you “libertarians” could use some help and by 8:58 you apparently remembered that you’re actually an anarchist. You do realize they aren’t the same thing, don’t you? Maybe you and Dr. Jekyll should get together and decide what it is that you actually believe in before you cement your reputation as a loon any further, although it’s a bit late for that here.

      It’s remarkable how your rhetoric matches that of the last anarchist I dealt with (and perhaps you shouldn’t feel too bad because he didn’t know if he was a libertarian, a min-archist or an anarchist either). Just like you he suggested that there is an assumption on my part that “a piece of paper” has “magical powers.” He too liked to pretend to be speaking for us “cons” in redneck lingo (because it helps gives your side a boost if we appear less intelligent, and since we won’t cooperate you have to do it for us, right? Kind of ironic coming from a guy who writes using the sic term “y’all”). He even used the unusual term “bizarro.” Clearly you two have been schooled at the same sites and may even know each other. You’ve been taught what to think to the extent that you parrot each other’s EXACT words and phrases. That kind of impressionability is scary.

      I didn’t ask you to explain to me “how the free market is better than socialism.” Why would I need some lunatic to explain to ME why legalized theft is a bad thing? That’s a nice straw man (weak debaters do love their straw men!). All I asked you to do was to explain how you achieve a state of statelessness in a world where every human being resides within a state and lives under some form of government. That’s all.

      I don’t know who is suggesting that a piece of paper has “magical power.” That’s just another straw man and a claim made by anarchist wannabes who think it’s some kind of gotcha statement. The Constitution merely conveys what the intent is of those who subscribe to it.

      Sorry, Einstein, but anarchy is not synonymous with freedom. It is synonymous with chaos. It does not lead to statelessness. It leads to gov’t by another name, that’s all. Witness your own words:

      Henry: “And, after you Baby-Boomer idiots finally die and get out of the way, we can get to rebuilding the society you wrecked... “

      “…rebuilding…society…”

      Was that a slip of the tongue, Henry? Because I thought you anarchists renounced the notion of “society.” Society implies organization, laws, traditions, shared cultural values. Oops – looks like you got some ‘splainin’ to do!

      We’re finished here, dude. You have nothing left as evidenced by your return to the same old talking points. Time and again here I have implored you to think for yourself, but you refuse to go there. You refuse to be challenged, so great is the fear of having to give up your precious prejudices and your phony sense of superiority. Sad.

      Delete
    2. You know as much about libertarianism as you do about military matters, history, economics, and philosophy, LOL…

      LOL…I didn't and have never "renounced the idea of society"…I just don't conflate "society" with "the state" like brainwashed statists do.

      And, btw, "anarchy" LITERALLY TRANSLATES to "without rulers"…

      I'll note, again, that you didn't address anything I said in a substantial fashion…you picked out what you thought were a few "gotcha" statements and boringly restated your "straw man" charge (ironic for someone who seems wholly unable to think logically)…

      Like I said, when you Cons wish to actually start OPPOSING Progressivism--instead of BEING Progressives--let us know! Until then keep on supporting the Communist income-tax!

      http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-326-what-i-told-the-washington-post-about-secession/

      Delete
    3. Yes, it’s very hard to compare myself to an Einstein like you.

      >>”And, btw, "anarchy" LITERALLY TRANSLATES to "without rulers"…”

      Mmmm, well… Unicorn translates to “having one horn,” but that doesn’t mean that such a creature actually exists.

      >>”…you didn't address anything I said in a substantial fashion…”

      What’s wrong? Not enough “LOLs” and “you voted for Paul!”’s for you? I’m sorry but I can’t seem to dumb-down my responses enough for an Einstein like you.

      Delete
  7. Cons never address the FACT that the nat'l debt and fed spending massively increased during the 'Conservative Era' (Reagan-Present), ESPECIALLY when the GOP had very strong majorities under GOPer Bush II…which is no surprise since it disproves their ridiculous theory that electing Republicans produces smaller govt…

    And yet con idiots keep on supporting McCain's and Romney's…I love upsetting ideologues w/inconvenient facts!


    "...cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they don’t discuss these things with YOU because of your history of childish simplisticness, dishonesty and irrationality. Just sayin’…

      What I believe is that gov’t exists because it is the natural consequence of human nature and human behavior, and so far history has proven me correct. So one of us is experiencing cognitive dissonance, but it isn’t me.

      Delete
  8. Timely article which encapsulates Con ignorance of military matters & Cons being in the pocket of Israel:

    The Persians Are Coming!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    January 28, 2015

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/patrick-j-buchanan/the-persians-are-coming/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that the same Patrick Buchanan who is an editor of ‘The American CONSERVATIVE?’ Author of “Suicide of a SUPERPOWER” (a suicide that I’m guessing you’re all for)? The same Pat Buchanan who said:

      “If [Christopher] Dawson is correct, the drive to de-Christianize America, to purge Christianity from the public square, public schools and public life, will prove culturally and socially suicidal for the nation.”

      — Suicide of a Superpower

      Buchanan is an intelligent and honest man, and you could learn a lot from him except that your only interest is to pick and choose from his writings to lend credibility to your carefully tailored worldview; but Buchanan’s ideas with respect to foreign policy are one facet of a much broader philosophy about society and gov’t. Buchanan is a self-described CONSERVATIVE, not an anarchist. Unlike you he is not afraid to engage in REAL debate. He puts his cards right out on the table and he has enough integrity not to misrepresent what his opponents say because he’s confident in his ability to win people over based upon the merits of his argument.

      I respect Buchanan and I think his opinions with respect to Iran et al are worth reading; but I also understand that these are serious matters and reasonable people can have honest disagreements, because unlike you I am open-minded. In his column Buchanan says, “Iran has never tested a nuclear device. She has never produced weapons-grade uranium.” With all due respect to Mr. Buchanan that’s about as assuring as the owner of a growling pit bull telling you not to worry because he’s never bitten anyone….yet. He could be right and Iran could be just a nominal threat. I wouldn’t discount that possibility. But there are equally intelligent and honest people who think otherwise, so it behooves us to at least hear both sides and in the end, as with all things, not everyone will be satisfied. If you and a friend are carjacked by armed thugs, one of you may believe that the best chance of survival is to fight for their weapons while the other may think it’s best to be cooperative. It’s impossible to know who’s right and neither one of you is necessarily stupid. REASONABLE people (i.e. not you) sometimes disagree.

      The one thing I do know for certain is that actions and policies of Barack Obama are not to be trusted. That’s because Obama is a leftist and leftists NEVER act on the right motivations. He’s a narcissist and what matters to him is his own importance and legacy. He wants to be able to SAY that his administration found a “diplomatic” solution to the problem of Iran. He doesn’t care what is sacrificed by anyone else for that feather in his cap, just as he doesn’t care about driving us further into socialism and bankruptcy so that he can say he “gave” healthcare to the poor. In the scenario above, if you know that your buddy is a selfish scoundrel who’s likely to run away while you fight for control of the gun, you might think twice about following his plans. If you know he’s a decent guy who wants to be sure you BOTH make it out alive, you might trust him even if the two of you disagree on strategy.

      Delete
    2. PB is significantly different from most Cons in that he isn't a rabid Israel-firster…HUGE difference.

      Delete
    3. “Nationalism, Not NATO, Is Our Great Ally”
      ~Pat Buchanan

      http://buchanan.org/blog/nationalism-nato-great-ally-6367

      “What Would Reagan Do?”
      ~Pat Buchanan
      http://buchanan.org/blog/reagan-6351

      “Romney for President”
      ~Pat Buchanan

      http://buchanan.org/blog/romney-for-president-5324



      As for your second comment today (“… those who voted for McCain "luuuuv 'Merica" ...” blah, blah, blah), I’m not allowing it. I’m not interested in your dishonest, childish, self-serving pretend-quotes, so save yourself the trouble. Speak only the truth or be gone. Your choice, genius.

      Delete
    4. Yes, PB suffers from some of the same delusions as other Cons, but I respect him for not being an Israeli lapdog and being a foreign-policy "realist" (still wants a way-too-big military) rather than a neocon like it seems 99% of Cons are these days (who, incredibly, don't seem to realize they're Wilsonian-style Progs on FP).

      Questions:

      What's the difference between voting for Republican Leftists like McCain/Romney and a Dem Leftist like Obama?

      Why would you or anyone else think McCain or Romney would've been better than BHO?

      Starting w/Nixon, govt. has tended to grow more under GOP Presidents then Dem ones…so how do you figure voting GOP means you're for less Prog-ism?

      Delete
    5. Q: “What's the difference between voting for Republican Leftists like McCain/Romney and a Dem Leftist like Obama?”

      It’s the difference between trusting your future to someone who’s inept but cares about you vs. someone who’s inept but does NOT care about you; or someone who’s an accidental socialist vs. someone who’s an intentional socialist.

      Obama is a liar and a con man (and a narcissist). He cares about no one but himself and those who can do something FOR him. You like to use the word “insane.” Well it’s insane to trust your future to a liar and a con man regardless of what the alternative is.

      Q: “Why would you or anyone else think McCain or Romney would've been better than BHO?”

      See answer above. If you went on ‘Let’s Make a Deal’ and you were told you could pick between door #1, #2 or #3, and then you were shown that behind #3 was a big pile of trash, you’d be pretty thick to still choose #3, wouldn’t you? To suggest that McCain or Romney would have done a trillion $ stimulus bill, forced Obamacare on a strict party-line vote or stacked the SCOTUS with leftist judges would be disingenuous but let’s say for the sake of argument that we don’t know that. Obama (“spread the wealth”) was the known quantity in this game for anyone who was paying attention. He was the fool’s choice.

      Q: “Starting w/Nixon, govt. has tended to grow more under GOP Presidents then Dem ones…so how do you figure voting GOP means you're for less Prog-ism?”

      I once spent 5 days in the Seattle area and the weather was just about perfect, nice and sunny. If I’m a person who doesn’t like rain, would you suggest I move there based on that limited experience?

      Anarchists intentionally take a very simplistic view and avoid looking at the whole picture because they foolishly believe that there’s some value in winning the debate this way. I used to work as a commercial loans analyst for a big Bank and I can assure you I would have been fired within two minutes if I analyzed credit requests the way you analyze presidential terms. I will readily concede that republicans are not immune from looking at the actions of their presidents with rose-colored glasses, but if you think you have any claim to superiority there you’d better think again. It is just as big a sin to falsely convict people because it suits your own agenda. Historians write entire books analyzing presidencies, and you want to boil it down to a measurement of what the national debt was when they took office compared to when they left. Let me assure you that the debt on Microsoft’s balance sheet today is far greater than it was the day the company was formed. Does that mean Microsoft sucks as a company? Is it being mismanaged? There are a lot of things that happened between point A and point B and a fair and intelligent person takes all of it into consideration.

      Ron Paul stumped for Reagan. Is he a progressive? Pat Buchanan endorsed Mitt Romney. Is he a progressive? Stop being a simpleton.

      Delete
  9. I've got an idea for your next blog entry:

    Explain how Iran and N. Korea can mount a seaborne invasion and conquest of the USA, even tho they have economies which don't even rank in the top-10 compared to the 50 American states (NK would come in at #49, LMFAO).

    Also, you can list China's and Russia's naval capabilities and show how THEY could mount a successful seaborne invasion/conquest of the USA.

    Please tell this ignoramus how any of the foreign boogeymen you Cons like bringing up to justify your favorite govt.-jobs/corporate-welfare program ('defense' spending) are gonna transport MILLIONS of soldiers and gosh-knows how much equipment/material to our shores to conquer us and also how these boogeymen are gonna maintain 10,000-mile long supply-lines.

    As someone who seems to have a lot of time on her hands (hmmmm…could it be that you're part of the deadbeat, little-to-no tax-paying "47%" Romney referred to?) I think this would make for an interesting blog-entry, instead of the typical "Liberals bad hate America, Conservatives good love America" you produce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My Dear Ignoramus,

      Why don’t you ask the person(s) who are suggesting that Iran and NK can mount a seaborne invasion and conquest of the USA or those who are suggesting that China or Russia will invade and conquer us by sea to write you a blog post? That is, if you can find them.

      Sincerely,
      CW

      Delete
    2. Well, we were having a discussion about nat'l defense…and you keep saying that the only reason no one invades us is because of the ridiculously well-funded (Pentagon's budget is larger than the economies of most nations on Earth, LMFAO), massive, and techno-advanced military w/100's of bases all over the world the USG has.

      So I've merely tossed out all of Cons' favorite boogeymen and asked you to explain to me HOW they pose a credible threat to the USA which requires the maintenance of such a massive standing army (which many of your 'founder' heroes warned against btw, but whom you people conveniently ignore when it comes to foreign-policy advice like not having political ties to other nations and leaving Europe to Europeans). Or, maybe there are alien invaders or some other nations I've forgotten that represent a threat requiring a permanent, massive, standing army w/the most up-to-date tech available and a budget that would make most other nations jealous?

      Or, maybe I'm RIGHT and Cons are far more interested in nat'l greatness, a govt.-jobs program for losers who have no better prospects, corporate welfare for arms dealers, and all of the wonderful 'free' welfare goodies (such as 'free' $$$ for college so that the Marxists teachers/administrators on campuses remain well-funded and in the business of indoctrination another generation) given to vets after they leave active service?

      Delete
    3. >>“So I've merely tossed out all of Cons' favorite boogeymen…”

      Nice try but in order for these worries of “seaborne invasions” and “conquests” by Iran, N.K., China and Russia to qualify as “Cons favorite boogeymen” you need to list at least a few conservatives who’ve actually expressed these concerns. Since you didn’t come up with even one I’d say you’re the one with the boogeyman.

      >>” …and asked you to explain to me HOW they pose a credible threat to the USA which requires the maintenance of such a massive standing army…”

      So since I’ve called out your lame attempts at straw-man arguments about “seaborne invasions” and “conquests,” now you want to pretend that there was some reasonable aspect to your question all along. LOL. Okay, I’ll play along.

      I don’t presume to know, nor have I ever pretended to know, all of the means by which other nations could pose a threat to us. Unlike you I just assume that there could be tactics, strategies and plans that I might never have considered. As I’ve been saying all along, what we spend on the military and our level of preparedness is a subjective thing that reasonable, informed people should openly and fairly debate, and those with alternative agendas who employ straw-men and other dishonest arguments (like yourself) should be excluded from that debate. If the threats that exist don’t warrant the size of military we have then by all means scale it back to the appropriate size. You won’t find a single word anywhere on this blog that contradicts that philosophy.

      >>”… jobs program for losers who have no better prospects…”

      Well not everyone can be a regurgitating drone of LewRockwell.com talking points who fights straw-men and despises his country but doesn’t have the you-know-whats to leave. THAT takes someone really special, eh Einstein?

      Delete
    4. OK, so you can't list any credible threats which justify the current, massive, boondoggle-of-a-standing-army…

      Typical of a Con.

      Pig Ignorant

      Fred Reed on the White House, Pentagon, American public, and the Middle East.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/fred-reed/pig-ignorant/


      Delete
    5. What’s pig ingnorant is some clueless dufus who debates with straw-men playing at being an expert on national defense. You’re too ignorant to recognize your own ignorance, kiddo.

      Delete
  10. The challenge for libertarians like me is:

    How do we convince Right&Left-wing Progs that freedom is better than cradle-to-grave Nanny/Daddy-statism?

    How do we convince you that free-markets are better than the socialist/fascist mixture that is the norm today?

    Let's be honest here…someone like you (who probably collects, or expects to soon collect, 'free' social-security/medicare/pension/etc. and gets a 'free' quasi-empire and 'free' Daddy-state Progressivism to boot) doesn't wanna give up all of that 'free' stuff govt. has promised you…this is the real reason Ron Paul was so hated by y'all Progs...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you’re a libertarian today, are you? Are you an anarchist only on the weekends?

      You don’t have to convince me of anything, honeybunch, but if you want my advice on persuading people let me suggest that you start by not being such an arrogant asshole.

      Delete
    2. I really don't know what's so hard to understand about libertarianism (the 1st principle from which we work being the Non-Aggression Principle) encompassing everything from those working to promote freedom on single-issue matters like drug legalization or gun-rights all the way to those who take the NAP to its logical conclusion of anarchy (applying the NAP to everyone in society)…I wouldn't even have much of a prob w/Cons if they consistently practiced what they preached and had some kind of sane prioritization (instead of wasting time on crap like homosexuals, MJ, and nat'l greatness) as far as their ideology goes…



      Delete
    3. >>“Applying the NAP to everyone in society…”

      What does that mean, exactly? What happens if not “everyone” wants to live by the NAP?

      Who decides what qualifies as “aggression?”

      How do you enforce it?

      Delete
    4. >>“…instead of wasting time on crap like homosexuals, MJ, and nat'l greatness…”

      As I said in my post on The Trouble with Libertarianism, neither the individual nor societies can exist without one another. You’ve talked about “rebuilding society,” or applying the NAP to everyone “in society.” You acknowledge, in essence, the interdependent relationship between individuals and society. And yet, like the typical rebellious child, you ignorantly scoff at the adults’ calls for a bit of self-discipline and moral order for the sake of preserving society. Dumb. I understand it, as I was once a kid myself, but I outgrew it when I reached adulthood. That’s the difference between a conservative and a liberal and some libertarian-anarchist-wannabes.

      A society is a lot like a household. In a happy household there are rules that help promote a harmonious environment. These rules go beyond barring aggressive acts toward one another. There are rules with respect to cleanliness, noise, the borrowing of other’s property, drug use, sex…whatever works for that household. I asked you once before if you’ve ever been part of a household and if, either because you had to as a condition of living there or out of courtesy for your housemates, you observed certain standards of behavior. You picked up after yourself, you didn’t have your bandmates (or your girlfriend) over for midnight sessions in the living room, you locked the door when you left so that your housemates’ property was safe…whatever. You never answered. That wasn’t an oversight, lol. We both know why you didn’t answer. Acting within your little microcosm of society, your readily observed some rules and made a few compromises in order to preserve the household for the sake of having a place to live (and hopefully thrive) in relative peace and comfort. The very same principle applies to society, and if you can’t see that then you still have some growing up to do.

      Delete
    5. >>…"neither the individual nor societies can exist without one another."<<

      Societies are collections of individuals…just as a forest is a collection of trees. So, sorry, but this assertion fails logically since individuals CAN and DO exist while, in reality, "societies" don't.

      "And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families." -- Margaret Thatcher

      >>"A society is a lot like a household."<<

      LOL, shades of HRC's "it takes a village" statement…and, once again, there is no such thing as "society". "Society" (what do you mean by this, a neighborhood, a city, county, state, or federal govt./agency, what?), for the most part, is large groups of strangers who have little-to-no direct contact w/one another going about their daily lives…in a household every individual is free to leave if the situation doesn't work for them…so no, "society" (which you seem to conflate w/political authority) is not like a household at all.

      Delete
    6. >>"What does that mean, exactly?"<<

      Exactly what it says--no one in the kind of world (or "society") I'm describing will be considered exempt from the consequences of their individual actions, unlike today where the brain-washed masses see nothing wrong w/being ruled by a Master Class who make and are "above the law".

      >>"What happens if not “everyone” wants to live by the NAP?"<<

      I don't expect everyone would, until the time when genetic engineering or some other kind of technological break through can eliminate "bad seeds" (psychopaths, sociopaths, etc.). Violators of the NAP could be dealt w/in different ways depending on level of aggression--anything from shunning to death…unlike today where the worst violators of the NAP are looked up to as role models and respected leaders by the brainwashed masses.

      >>"Who decides what qualifies as “aggression?”<<

      There are many resources online to answer this (I've already suggested Rothbard and Hoppe)…I see no need to spend a lot of time explaining since you'll just nitpick whatever I say...my short answer tho is:

      Unlike today, it won't be the largest aggressor (the state) deciding what counts as aggression.

      >>How do you enforce it?<<

      As I said, anything from shunning to death, depending on level of aggression.

      There is no reason things like courts, police, military and other types of conflict-resolution/defensive orgs can't exist in a stateless society…they just won't be socialist in nature like what you and the rest of the brainwashed masses prefer (or think is the ONLY way)…just because YOU can't conceive of a way private industry can provide a given product/service doesn't mean its impossible. Your Left-wing Prog brethren can't conceive that the private sector can (if left alone) deliver HC, but that doesn't mean socialism is the ONLY way to provide it.

      Delete
    7. >>” Societies are collections of individuals…just as a forest is a collection of trees.”

      So you’re comparing people to trees, huh? Ever notice that trees have no consciousness and do not interact with other trees? Trees don’t hurt other trees, or engage in business and trade with other trees. Trees don’t fight over property rights. I can hardly think of a more inapt comparison.

      Society has a definition, genius. Look it up.

      People interact and have the ability to impact one another in societies just as they interact with each and impact each other in households. The types of interactions and impact may be different but the principle is the same, and btw, you probably interact with far more people in your society each day than with people in your household. The articles at LewRockwell.com talk about this or that society. I wouldn’t have thought this was such a difficult concept to grasp.

      ------------------

      >>”… no one…will be considered exempt…”

      >>“Violators of the NAP could be dealt w/in different ways depending on level of aggression--anything from shunning to death…”

      >>” Unlike today, it won't be the largest aggressor (the state) deciding what counts as aggression.”

      >>” There is no reason things like courts, police, military and other types of conflict-resolution/defensive orgs can't exist in a stateless society…they just won't be socialist in nature…”

      And so the truth is revealed and it is precisely as I described in The Trouble with Libertarianism:

      “Such crusades, I am finding, are often more about imposing one group’s preferences with respect to liberty at the expense of someone else’s notion of liberty.“

      Thanks for proving me right once again. While the power of the state unquestionably and inevitably gets abused, to declare that you don’t want ‘the state’ deciding what qualifies as “aggression” or that justice won’t be “socialist” in nature is simply your way of saying that you and your friends will DICTATE how things are going to be. There’s no other way to interpret what you just said.

      What gives you the right to decide that no one will be exempt from your design for the world, especially since we’re all just as inanimate as trees? Pray tell me how does, say, the military work in your stateless society? Don’t tell me to go read so and so. YOU are the one that declared there’s no reason it can’t work. YOU explain it.

      Don’t come back until you do. Any comment that doesn’t answer my question will be deleted.





      Delete
    8. This response is typical of someone who can't conceive of a world in which a tiny ruling class doesn't ride herd over the vast majority.

      And, no, I wasn't comparing people to trees (god are you really this obtuse?), I was comparing the CONCEPT of a "forest" (which is simply a term to denote individual trees) to the CONCEPT of "society" (denotes individual humans).

      I'm not saying "no one will be exempt" either…people who desire to be ruled by others (in a free world) certainly could set up their own, little, authoritarian communities/compounds--surround them w/high, thick walls w/gun-towers on them for all I care.

      Delete
    9. >>”This response is typical of someone who can't conceive of a world in which a tiny ruling class doesn't ride herd over the vast majority.”

      Interesting comment from someone who just wants his own tiny ruling class to ride herd.

      >>”And, no, I wasn't comparing people to trees …, I was comparing the CONCEPT of a "forest" (which is simply a term to denote individual trees) to the CONCEPT of "society" (denotes individual humans).”

      Ooooohhhh, the “CONCEPT.” My mistake! I thought when you said, “Societies are collections of individuals…just as a forest is a collection of trees,” that you actually meant societies are collections of individuals…just as a forest is a collection of trees. Silly me.

      >>”I'm not saying "no one will be exempt" either…”

      My mistake again! I thought when you said, “…no one in the kind of world (or "society") I'm describing will be considered exempt from the consequences of their individual actions,” that you meant no one in the kind of world (or "society") you described will be considered exempt from the consequences of their individual actions.

      Just out of curiosity, you do realize that I can go back and read what you wrote, don’t you?

      >> ”…people who desire to be ruled by others (in a free world) certainly could set up their own, little, authoritarian communities/compounds--surround them w/high, thick walls w/gun-towers on them for all I care.”

      Why should they have to do that in a stateless society? I thought you believed in freedom! Hahahahahahahahaha

      Still waiting to hear how you approach the military, courts and police in a stateless society (I hear it’s easy!)………………..

      Delete
  11. Replies
    1. I left you with one simple challenge based on your own statement (”There is no reason things like courts, police, military and other types of conflict-resolution/defensive orgs can't exist in a stateless society…”). You were supposed to tell me how the military (or the courts or police) would work in a stateless society. You have failed to deliver on that challenge, which means you are the one who threw in the towel.

      The viability of the stateless society is the cornerstone of your argument for anarchy. All of these other things you want to argue about (authoritarianism, national defense, presidential candidates, etc) are a waste of time unless you can demonstrate that your alternative to gov’t is feasible. You’re going to have to either think for yourself or do some research to see what your mentors have to say on the subject, but I’m not entertaining any more of your nonsense until you answer my challenge.

      Delete