Category Archives: Liberty

Election Day

I pull my shirt off and pray
We’re sacred and bound to suffer this heatwave
– Arcadia, “Election Day”

Vote for Trump.

The Clintons cannot be allowed anywhere near the White House ever again.

If you can’t bring yourself to vote for Trump, vote for one of the third party candidates. Vote for a write-in. Stay home and don’t vote. But DO NOT give Clinton any votes.

For anyone among the handful of readers here who missed these, Vox Day has some interesting posts raising a lot of questions about the Clinton Machine here, here, here, here, here, and here.

If these seem to stretch credulity, Vox linked to this post on Reddit. Fair warning, it might make you sick.

Jim has written a piece here, where he states “The Clinton circle ritually and collectively perform degenerate acts as a sacrament (Podesta’s Spirit Cooking). ”  It only gets much worse from there.

Vote Trump and pray.

 

Advertisements

SJWs Always Lie

Last night I purchased Vox’s Day’s new book, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down The Thought Police. It’s only been out a few days but seems to be doing pretty well.

The book is well worth reading. I’ve seen examples of SJW attacks and tactics in my own life, and they happened pretty much in the manner Vox describes. He lays out strategies for anticipating and dealing with them. If they haven’t happened to you or someone you know, it’s just a matter of time.

 

Speed Kills

When super speed s outlawed, only outlaws will travel at super speed

When super-speed is outlawed, only outlaws will travel at super-speed

Clearly, we need legislation against the use of super-speed. Because career criminals always obey laws.

Unsettling Law

Is this a frivolous challenge to the Affordable Care Act? Ofer Raban says it is –

…one provision of the ACA provides that “Each State shall…establish an American Health Benefit Exchange” — thereby implying that states must establish such exchanges. It is not surprising, therefore, that the provision extending health insurance subsidies for low income households speaks of insurance purchased on exchanges “established by the state[s].”

However, other provisions of the ACA declare that it is up to the states whether to establish a health care exchange and that if a state chooses not to establish one, the federal government would establish a federally operated substitute.

Raban states that “relentless Republican opposition” resulted in only 16 states establishing exchanges on their own, while the other 34 states went with a federal exchange. He continues –

The frivolous claim in the case is simple: Since the language in the subsidies provision refers to insurance purchased on exchanges “established by the state[s],” the government is precluded — so goes the claim — from giving those subsidies to those who purchased their insurance on the federally operated exchanges that came to substitute for those state-exchanges that were never established.

This statutory interpretation makes no sense. As one federal judge put it: This “literal reading of the [statute] renders the entire Congressional scheme nonsensical.” The ACA stretches over 900 pages, and contains hundreds of provisions which, as often happens, are not always perfectly consistent. (I already mentioned the provision that seems to require state-established exchanges, and the other that makes it optional.) When faced with such inconsistencies, judges are supposed to effectuate statutes in a sensible manner. But the main argument in the case does not appeal to any good sense. Instead, it appeals to a theory of legal interpretation that abjures good sense in favor of textual literalism: This is the text, they say, and that is all that matters — even if the ensuing result is an “odd” one.

Raban calls this “interpretative fundamentalism” and writes that the Supreme Court “recently read the Federal Bankruptcy Code in a nonliteral way, after determining that the literal reading ‘would produce senseless results that we do not think Congress intended.'”

It is not the job of judges to engage in guesswork about what legislators “intended.” It’s their job to examine the law as written. If a literal reading of a law seems nonsensical, then it’s because the law as written is nonsensical. Raban admitted as much himself in mentioning the the conflicting provisions.

Trying to “effectuate statutes” to arrive at a “sensible” conclusion instead of an “odd” one undermines equality before the law. Not only is the law not applied equally – different results for different people – but each and every judge will have a different idea of how to apply it. What one judge deems good sense, another might consider unfair or harmful.

Also note this passage – “These subsidies are the heart of the ACA: Without them, millions of people would not be able to afford health insurance and would be exempt from purchasing it. And this, in turn, would deprive insurers of the broad-based participation that makes it financially feasible to forbid them to deny coverage or charge higher premiums of sick or high-risk individuals.” Insurers are no longer allowed to decide who they do or don’t want to do business with, and citizens are no longer allowed to decide which commercial transactions they do or don’t want to engage in. Welcome to 2015, comrades.

This is not some HuffPo blogger or one of the Vox guys. The credit at the end of the column read “Ofer Raban teaches constitutional and criminal law at the University of Oregon School of Law.”

The Wages Of Dumb

I’ve decided not to surf the internet anymore and just steal from let Vodkapundit bring me my news. It’s the best source for stories about pantless intoxicated female schoolteachers. On her first day of work, no less.

Also of note is his his semi-regular commentary on the latest babytalk by juicevoxer Matt Yglesias. And by “commentary” I mean “smart-ass comment on how ridiculous Yggy’s article is.” Such as Yggy’s” case for a maximum wage.” He uses professional basketball as an example of how such a cap works, noting that the NBA has a salary cap and because of that, players are less motivated to sign with a team for money than for things like “teammate and title chances.” But here’s the kicker –

The most important lesson, however, is what the maximum salary doesn’t do — lead the stars to Go Galt and take their talents to the retirement community.

For starters, the top stars get paid a lot of money! But more than that, it turns out that to be successful at high-level professional basketball requires a certain level of passion for the sport and competitive instinct. Players want to win games and outshine their rivals on the biggest stages. Stars not only play for sub-market wages professionally, but they often play for free for their national team in the Olympics. Top performers like money, but they also take pride in a job well done.

This is followed by a recap of tax rates from World War II on, and the results of changes implemented during Reagan’s administration. Although there’s a comparison of the pre-Reagan and post-Reagan economies (yet nothing about the actual Reagan years), no mention is made of a cutoff point in the post-Ronnie years. Do we stop counting at 2000? Or do we include the dot-com bubble bursting and the endless post-2008 recession?

But don’t think about concrete numbers. What matters here is the feelings involved –

A related issue is raised by Facundo Alvaredo, Anthony Atikinson, Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez who find that lower tax rates have shifted incentives for executives at big companies such that effort is now “diverted to increasing their remuneration at the expense of enterprise growth and employment.” In other words, in a high-tax regime executives compete to run the biggest, best company for pride and glory whereas in a low-tax regime they compete to take home the biggest paycheck.

Because execs want to play for free every four years in the Executive Olympics. And have more pride and glory to distribute among their workforce.

I also get a kick out of caption beneath the last photo – “happy German factory worker.” Potemkin on the Rhine.

I could go into more problems with this piece, but it’s all ultimately irrelevant. Regardless of arguments for or against such a super-tax, it really comes down to two points –

Point one is that given the problems that come with a minimum wage, is a maximum wage really a good idea?

The second point comes down to property rights. If the NBA owners freely agree to cap their salaries, that’s their business. Imposing a tax by legislation is a different story. This was best summed up in the 80s by the legendary sage Bobby Brown –

I made this money, you didn’t
Right, Ted?
We outta here

In The Village

Number Six: Has it ever occurred to you that you are just as much a prisoner as I am?
Number Two: …It doesn’t matter which “side” runs the Village….
Number Six: The whole Earth as the Village?
Number Two: That is my hope. What’s yours?
Number Six: I’d like to be the first man on the moon.

It must be “Politics & Superheroes” Week on the internet or something…

 

Edison vs the Village

“The Village is mediocrity. The Village is failure.”

 

 

Der Kommissar’s Online

Zwei drei vier, it’s easy to see
But it’s not that I don’t care so
‘Cause I hear it all the time
But they never let you know
On the T.V. and the radio

– Falco, “Der Kommissar

A couple of Thought Police wannabes want to silence Dalrock – Atheist Adam Lee’s smear campaign to silence my discussion of Christian sexual morality.

Adam Lee AKA the Daylight Atheist has asked his twitter followers to falsely report my blog to wordpress for abuse.  I’m writing this post to help anyone from wordpress understand the nature of the smear campaign against me, and to also ensure that I have the opportunity to defend myself against this smear campaign while I still have a platform to do so.

Adam Lee is a blogger on Patheos who focuses on attacking Christians whom he accuses of being liars.  However, Lee isn’t above lying himself when he gets the opportunity to silence a blogger like myself who dares to write about Christian sexual morality:

smear

First, this isn’t an MRA blog.  I am not an MRA, I am a Christian and I write almost exclusively about a topic I have great passion for;  marriage.  However, MRAs do read my blog and are part of the conversation.

More importantly, the blog post which caused Adam Lee to organize a campaign to have me silenced wasn’t abuse, it was a discussion of sexual morality.  In my post One at a time, please I pointed out that since we have abandoned biblical sexual morality we have ended up with the incredibly low standard of serial monogamy, which when you boil it down simply means “one at a time”.  In that post I pointed to a columnist on the gossip site The Frisky who wrote about having sex with multiple men after telling her husband she wanted a divorce but before the divorce was official.  To be clear, this is a woman gossiping about her sex life on a gossip site she writes for.  This wasn’t me exposing anything in her personal life that she hadn’t decided to share with everyone who will listen.  In the same post, I linked to the woman’s personal blog where she has a dedicated section of self portraits, as well as to her public Flickr page.  These links were in context with the point of my post which was that even a free spirit like the woman at the Frisky felt compelled to demonstrate that she was complying with our new (but meaningless) definition of sexual morality.

The gossip columnist was incensed, and reached out over Twitter to fellow atheist Adam Lee asking him to organize a campaign of atheists to (falsely) report this blog to wordpress for abuse…

Read the rest here.

Lee claims to be a libertarian, but apparently doesn’t understand the libertarian concept of free speech, including speech that one finds offensive. But then, Lee is also unclear on the Hobby Lobby case, not understanding that the decision was an affirmation of individual rights, e.g. “you can’t be forced to spend your money on other people.” Hardcore free-market libertarian and atheist Don Boudreaux grokked it just fine here, so I’m not sure what part of it Lee has trouble with. But given Lee’s reasoning on the HL case, one can see how he doesn’t really get free speech either.

Lee’s censorious – and anti-libertarian – nature is exemplified by this tweet –

Social Sanction

Gotta shut them h8ful Xians up.

Social sanction. Hah! I’m highly amused by this. Having spent most of my life on the outside, socially speaking, I don’t see what’s so horrible about buzzword-spewing HerdThinkers not wanting to talk to me. I kinda prefer it.

Lee’s “About” page states “Daylight Atheism was created to push back against undeserved privileging of religion and to encourage atheists to step out of their closets, into the daylight, and take our rightful place at the table of society’s discourse.” Fair enough. But keeping true to left-“libertarian”ism’s zero-sum mentality, this place at the table can only come at the expense of shoving other people away.

Questions With No Answers

Some stuff I’ve been pondering….

Can someone point me to an explanation of Neoreaction? One that is geared toward the layman and not 30 pages long? I’m not very inclined to buy into it, but I would at least like to know what it is I’m not buying into so I can explain why I’m not buying into it.

__________________________________

I recently asked two questions regarding the Hobby Lobby case. Since no one answered, I’m asking again. First, how much does birth control cost out-of-pocket? Is it really that expensive? It would seem to be rather affordable given how many women use it, and that mass production lowers costs. But I’ve never bought it, so I can’t say for sure. Second, I’ve seen comments claiming women often need birth control for medical reasons other than actual contraception. Do abortifacients provide any kind of medical benefit the way, say, birth control pills do?

__________________________________

Proponents of population control are saying most people are nothing more than consumers, and will deplete the world’s resources. So why do they push for a welfare state, which is primarily a population of consumers who don’t produce?

__________________________________

Have any of the very rich politicians or entertainers who complain loudly about income inequality ever just issued some poorer people a check?

__________________________________

Will the Falco Tribute Band destroy civilization… or save it?

 

Title is from here. Mickey explains it’s historical significance. Although you should watch the original first or this one won’t make much sense to you.

Two-Edged Sword

Via Ed Driscoll – E.J. Dionne says it’s time for Progressives to reclaim the Constitution

It’s odd to see Dionne calling for this, since self-styled “Progressives” have been the ones railing against the Constitution for decades, pushing for a “Living Constitution” that can be molded like Jello into whatever shape they want, or for ignoring it completely. Even his plea for “reclamation” comes across more like stuffing it in a vault so no one can see it and challenge whatever they say it means this week. The entire article sounds like a feint to continue doing what they’ve been doing – whatever they want, Constitutional or not.

Regarding such… Driscoll also quotes my close personal friend and breakfast lifestyle director Thomas Friedman, who infamously wrote –

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

Let’s take Friedman’s assertion at face value, and assume China’s leaders are all Pretty Nice Guys, which for all I know, they very well might well be. But what happens when these people are inevitably – if for no other reason that aging – gone? Will the next group of leaders be so charitable? What the tinplate El Jefe groupies like Friedman don’t seem to grasp is that the Constitution wasn’t written for reasonably enlightened leaders. It was written for the lowest common denominator, designed to function even when the worst people are in charge. Warren Meyer explained it over at Coyote Blog –

Over the past fifty years, a powerful driving force for statism in this country has come from technocrats, mainly on the left, who felt that the country would be better off if a few smart people (ie them) made the important decisions and imposed them on the public at large, who were too dumb to make quality decision for themselves.  People aren’t smart enough,they felt, to make medication risk trade-off decision for themselves, so the FDA was created to tell them what procedures and compounds they could and could not have access to.  People couldn’t be trusted to teach their kids the right things, so technocrats in the left defended government-run schools and fought school choice at every juncture…I am reminded of all this because the technocrats that built our regulatory state are starting to see the danger of what they created.  A public school system was great as long as it was teaching the right things and its indoctrinational excesses were in a leftish direction.  Now, however, we can see the panic.  The left is freaked that some red state school districts may start teaching creationism or intelligent design.  And you can hear the lament – how did we let Bush and these conservative idiots take control of the beautiful machine we built?  My answer is that you shouldn’t have built the machine in the first place – it always falls into the wrong hands.

Read the rest here.

Happy 4th Of July

Your government wishes you a happy Dependence Day.

Americas Guardian

He knows where to find you, citizen

 

Okay, I can’t be completely cynical. Have another one.

 

Superman by Fred Ray, 1942

Superman by Fred Ray, 1942

 

Hope you’re all having a happy 4th.

Bonus pic, click to embiggen –

Superman in WWII, by Jerry Ordway, 1990

Superman in WWII, by Jerry Ordway, 1990