Tuesday, July 15, 2014
I came across this book by Emily Pauline Johnson (1861-1913) of First Nations Heritage back in 1913 who refers to her race as "We redskins." I thought this was interesting considering the supposed racism controversy surrounding the Redskins name recently.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
My Response to: Why I am NOT a Libertarian by the Jimi Freidenker
Freidenker's link is at http://www.freewebs.com/pansexualppp/ppppblog.htm
Jimi: The ideal of laissez-faire is very seductive, especially to ambitious entepreneurs, but it ignores the plain fact that private institutions like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. Moreover, our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, constrained by the constitution and the voters.
Reply: Government is not constrained by the constitution, it snubs the constitution all the time. The constitution is a useless document because almost all presidents have sidestepped it. The government is also not constrained by voters. Take a look at Obama. People voted for him because he promised to close Quantanamo Bay, end the wars, reduce the debt, fix the economy, create transparency...none of which was actually done. In fact, he did the opposite. Obama is just Bush 2.0. You can't constrain government because both the Democrats and the Republicans like reducing our freedoms, they both like killing people overseas, they both destroy the economy and they both put us in a higher debt situation.
Jimi: Corporations in the absence of government regulation would be unbounded authoritarian structures.
Reply: I have a "mail" rule to determine whom I fear most. Am I more afraid of getting mail from the Government, or a Corporation (like Starbucks or Walmart for instance)? I think most people would say they are more afraid of getting mail from the Government, I certainly am. I fear my government, I don't fear Burger King. I go to a Government office because I am forced to, I go to Starbucks because I choose to.
Jimi: They [Corporations] are already, in my humble opinion, far more oppressive to our citizens than any government entity.
Reply: What an idiotic statement. The leading cause of non-natural death in the past 100 years have been governments. Hewlett-Packard has no incentive to kill its customers. Look, what is a corporation? It is a business organization which is chartered by the Government and given legal rights by the Government. Everything you despise about corporations was made possible by Government. Let's say you believe Company A is killing people. How then is it getting away with it, for as we all know, murder is illegal? If Company A is getting away with murder, it is allowed to do so by the Government. We don't have a laissez-faire Capitalist economy, we have a Corporatist economy. In other words, a Fascist economy.
To get a disk with 300 Books for Libertarians, Objectivists, Anarchists & Voluntaryists go to
Monday, May 21, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Others have responded to me thusly: "You are equating taxes to theft?? Do you think roads and other civic services just magic themselves into existence?"
My reply: I want choice in roads and other services. I don't want to be forced into paying a government monopoly for such things. The free market can handle all those more efficiently and at far better costs. Additionally, tax theft also goes towards many things I deem immoral but am forced to pay for anyways.
Other response: "'Choice of roads'? What the hell does that? mean?"
My reply: I think it's sad that people think that only a violent government monopoly can build roads. All kinds of services assumed by this monopoly can be handled much more efficiently in the private sector. A private company also cannot run deficits that threaten? our very livelihood. Wikipedia has a great article on Free-market roads.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
"...Comte's Altruism advances beyond the limits of Christian doctrine. He teaches that, instead of loving our neighbour as ourselves, we should endeavour not to love ourselves at all. And this, which is the most original feature in Comte's doctrine, is claimed by his followers as an improvement on Christianity.
A fair comparison of the two will show that this fancied superiority is a dream of the study, and betrays a want of acquaintance with human nature. To exclude self-love is to take away the natural provision for self
Preservation and self-culture, which are necessary conditions of the welfare of society. On the other hand, to make self-love a standard of brotherly love, as in the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," is to supply the most effective means by which brotherly love can promote its own object. Altruism without Egoism would be a vague yearning for the happiness of others, without any clear idea of happiness, what it is, or how it is to be obtained. If we suppose a company of pedestrians, each troubled in mind to be sure that his companions' boots fit them comfortably, and indifferent to his own, we should have a picture of a state of society in which Egoism was extinguished and Altruism remained. It would be necessary to find some kind of substitute for Egoism, in order to keep alive the sensibility to pleasure and pain, which is as necessary for the happiness of others as for our own. A man who wishes to make others happy has more power to do so in proportion as he feels sympathy in their pleasure; and thus Egoism has a function preparatory to Altruism. On strictly Altruist principles arts and sciences would languish. That which impelled Columbus to the discovery of America, and led on the inventors of the printing press and the steam engine, was not a prevision of the social benefits to follow, but rather an unsatisfied desire of the mind to accomplish a noble object."
To buy a DVDrom with 300 Books for Libertarians, Objectivists and Anarcho-Capitalists for only $1.59 go to Ebay at http://tinyurl.com/liberty300 or Ioffer at Click Here
Friday, January 20, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
"It's time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is." ~ Arianna Huffington
My Reply: It is stupid articles like this that demonstrate a horrific ignorance of economics. You cannot call for the end of something (laissez-faire markets) that never existed in the first place. We have had government intrusion in the markets from day one in the form of tarriffs and subsidies, and State involvement in the marketplace is so rampant that what we have now can better be called a Fascist Economy.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
I don't like the term "Giving Back." It is based on the biggest economic fallacy there is: The Zero Sum Fallacy. This fallacy states that there is a fixed pie and one can only gain at the expense of another. If this was the case we would still have a 17th century size economy. Anyone who does business, sets up shop, sells online, actually INCREASES the size of the pie.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Attempting to try to ‘unsocialize’ the state is futile. One political party referring to the other as ‘socialist’ is hysterical. All politics that exist within the state monopoly are only variations on the question of who the wealth will come from and where it will go. This has always been the nature of the state.” ~Gene DeNardo
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The people that educate, pave roads, or put out fires are compensated for their work by their customers, they have no further claim on anyone’s wealth.
I even hate the use of the words "social contract." Rousseau invented the idea and it ties everyone to a burdensome contract devised before they're even born. It's like Original Sin. Anything that is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality.