If your idea of freedom is the ability to ask the government for permission to do something, you’re doing it wrong.
(via theanarchocapitalist)
Source: enemyofthestatist
“The curse of government interest in your industry is best avoided at all costs”
- Cass Wilkinson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Slavery was decided “democratically”
Says who?
If I remember correctly, in the United States, the free marketeers and capitalists brought slaves here. It was a natural result of religion, unrestrained markets, greed, and pure selfishness leading up to believing that another man was less valuable.
Unrestricted democracy is mob rule. The only reason slavery wasn’t illegal from the get-go was because those elected “democratically” didn’t want it to be, and didn’t include the views of other human beings — the slaves — as part of the so-called “demographic.”
I see, so basically you’re saying that it was all the politicians fault and that the market played no part in its creation or design. It’s amazing how everything is the fault of government.
Nope. Not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that if the government of the time truly believed that “all men are created equal” they wouldn’t have allowed slavery to exist. Instead of disallowing this cruel, coercive, abusive, murderous institution to exist, they encouraged the slave owners, and elected them to office. Much like today, those in “the market” were closely tied to, and responsible for those “in office.” An early form of Crony-Capitalism, this aided and abetted amoral practices in the so-called “market.” If you don’t have a government separate from the market, you have a government that makes the market, as public policy will be directed by those with the most power, not those with the greatest goods (see: cannabis prohibition). Plus, Slavery was, at first, illegal, at least as far as rhetoric goes. Indentured servitude led to it after those in charge didn’t want to give up their human beings they now viewed as their “property”. Problem is, in order to have property, you have to be proper to an individual, meaning that they had to steal these people in order to have slaves, and not just indentured servants. They did this by a gradual process that is the mob rule of unrestrained democracy (for the theocratic oligarchs of the time, that is) that excluded the humans that were at question. Government, in this case, was the problem, because it responded to a lack of indentured servants (a lot of their terms were expiring) by creating Slave Codes, which used government force on the enslaved to back up the slave owners. With such protections in place, slavery became an institution, decided democratically, and with corporate backing from the corporatist US government.
You’re saying the government’s didn’t stop it. I agree. But the government’s didn’t create it. The government’s didn’t bring it to the United States, at least. The free marketeers did. They saw humans as a commodity just like anything else.
Free market requires all humans in it to be free. We’ve never had a truly free market, and the slave auctioneers of old were not allowing others to be selfish, as they chose to deny humans to their right to self, so it wasn’t pure selfishness either.
I disagree with your belief that in a free market everyone must be free. Obviously, if there was a market for an individual or a group of people not to be free, they wouldn’t be free without some moral interference or special interest opposing such a view. Hence history.
Only in an environment of previously discussed corporatism. If a market is to be free, then a market must not restrain a marketeer from participating in it. Otherwise, it is not free, as freedom is necessary to that end. Obviously.
selfish (sĕlˈfĭsh)
adj. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: “Selfish men were … trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights” ( Maria Weston Chapman).
Of course. A society, however, that denies humans the right to self is not selfish, as it acknowledges laws that would threaten a human’s self, and the precedent that that sets necessarily sets a precedent of future enslavement of man. Which is what we have. Once humans decided to “own” others, they violated the precepts of selfish existence, which would involve automatically opposing any and all sanctions on human rights, as the advancement on such ideals is an advancement against human self-interest. Read this if you haven’t already.
It’s selfishness (and also greed) that blinded slave owners from the moral implications of their actions. It’s a complete lack of empathy. It’s the idea of “private property” which is not absolute, and is characterized by many flaws. These property rights stem from a selfish doctrine. Even its champions argue that selfishness is a virtue and greed is good.To me, it all highlights the flaw in the crackpot theory that we are only individuals and that rights must come from a capitalist, property owning God who owns a chain of 7-11’s and tax free churches.
See above. Also, since the principal advocates of free markets were not religious, I don’t see where this God thing comes from. By the way, tax the Church. Or abolish income taxation. Just had to get that out there.
In Liberty,
IIF
Source: thinksquad
A good first set of tracks to get you through the day.
My music blog is up — for those of you who wanted it, here it is!
— IIF
Poor Richard’s News: VIDEO: Greg Gutfeld DESTROYS Jim Carrey’s anti-gun parody
Greg Gutfeld is one of the funniest guys out there, and he’s also a conservative. Today he annihilated Jim Carrey on Fox News’s opinion show The Five. We told you about Jim Carrey taking to twitter with a tasteless stab at gun owners in the US. Gutfeld wasn’t having any of it, and he didn’t mince words.
Here’s the video:
(via reactionism)
Source: poorrichardsnews
Slavery was decided “democratically”
Says who?
If I remember correctly, in the United States, the free marketeers and capitalists brought slaves here. It was a natural result of religion, unrestrained markets, greed, and pure selfishness leading up to believing that another man was less valuable.
Unrestricted democracy is mob rule. The only reason slavery wasn’t illegal from the get-go was because those elected “democratically” didn’t want it to be, and didn’t include the views of other human beings — the slaves — as part of the so-called “demographic.” Free market requires all humans in it to be free. We’ve never had a truly free market, and the slave auctioneers of old were not allowing others to be selfish, as they chose to deny humans to their right to self, so it wasn’t pure selfishness either.
Source: thinksquad
Oh my god so one time I was at this camp when I was about… 10 or 11. There was this English girl there, and we were talking about my hair.
So I said: “I know, my bangs are getting really long.”
Her reply: ”No, not bangs. Fringe. They fringe your face; they don’t bang your face.”
And that’s the story of how I began to question the intelligence of Americans.
From Merriam Webster:
5bang: transitive verb
: to cut (as front hair) short and squarely acrossFirst known use: 1878
Source: bbcsherlockftw
Slavery was decided “democratically”
(via theanarchocapitalist)
Source: thinksquad
A follow-up to this.
Watch the fun here.
Follow me on Twitter, if you want, here.
Either way, this conversation is getting nuts…
Assault rifles are illegal and have been for decades .
Of course. That’s why Mrs. Feinstein feels the urge to call them “assault-type weapons.” Thank whoever that that that part got voted off the legislative island…
Source: insanityisfree
Page 1 of 241
This is a Libertarian blog, so I might not be as PC as you might like. I will, however, attempt, to the best of my ability, to be logical. If you don't like that, you need not apply. I will post about economics, government, social issues, and maybe some frivolous stuff. For info on what I mean by "not being PC" refer to the below image. That being said, enjoy your stay.
Operating hours: weekdays
