Quote of the Day, 5/30/2013

A wise man (named L. Neil Smith) once said that without government, we would be 8 times as wealthy. The government (at all levels) takes half your income in taxes, products cost twice as much due to regulation, and cost twice as much again because the producers are paying taxes (on their earnings, on the supplies they buy, and the employer matching portion of payroll taxes).

And what do we get in return? Roadz, wars, and a prohibition-fueled crime wave.

-CE in a comment at Reason.com

[in]FAQ Starring Me

A series of [in]frequently asked questions about me and this blog.

(I read an article in some magazine where the author interviewed himself.)(  I realize that this may be frivolous and trivial but joviality and mirth always seem to come in insufficient quantities.)

You go by "Tim" for your internet handle.  Is that an acronym for something or are you so lacking in creativity that you chose your real name?

My real name is Tim, so most people call me...Tim.

What have you hoped to accomplish with this blog?  Have you accomplished it?

1. I forget.
2. Sure.

What's the best part of waking up?

Would it be: Folger's in your cup? [editors note: I just thought of another reason to stop watching TV.]

Your "about" page says things about hunting and fishing, what do you hunt and fish?

I hunt whitetail deer.  I fish for muskies and smallmouth bass.

What's your favorite book of fiction?

Macau by Daniel Carney

What's your favorite book of non-fiction?

Bell of Africa by W.D.M. Bell

Favorite author?

Jeffery Tucker

Favorite movie?

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie

Favorite music album(s)?

Hellbound Train, Savoy Brown
Drastic Fantastic, KT Tunstall
A Quiet Normal Life, Warren Zevon

What was your favorite blog post (from this blog)?

This one.  On monopolies.

Which blogs do you read regularly?

My blogroll ===>

You went without a haircut for two years.  What did you learn?

Having short hair is boring.

With long hair you have an added element of interest in your life; its one more thing to think about an plan for.  I would advise every guy to grow his hair for a year or more at least once.  Its a minor experience, but one where you'll get lots of comments and people will look at you differently because of it. 

The number of comments on my hair (when short) from girls: zero

The number of comments on my hair (when long) from girls: lots

My hair isn't terribly thick, but I determines that a daily washing with whichever Head & Shoulders shampoo and an occasional combing gave me good results.  It should be trimmed every few months though.

Its been a month since my last haircut,  and counting.

You haven't "debated" the loons at the Huffington Post in a while, why not?

I always knew that meaningful results would be minimal, but I finally decided that spending a full afternoon was too much time.  Awaiting responses takes time.  They never responded to what I thought were my best comments.  And finding the research to be as accurate with my facts as possible took time.

I may try it again once a few projects I'm working on see a bit more progress.

Which places would you like to visit, and why?

Hong Kong - because its cool
China - because its cool
The Philippines - NN
Brazil - girls, peacock bass, and all the other Amazonian fish
Somewhere in Africa - girls and elephants

Elephants?

I'd like to shoot an elephant.  It'll cost around $60,000 plus around $5,000 for an appropriate rifle (even though Bell used one the same size as the one I shot my first three deer with).  And going through the regulations to bring the tusks back will probably shorten my life by a year.

This isn't a funny [in]FAQ.

I was in a good mood when I wrote the title and first few questions, but that's less the case now that I've returned to this post to add a few more questions.

How's selling your Nissan 350Z going?

Slower than I thought.

The offers I'm getting stink.  What's with the offers at half the KBB value?  Why would I trade my 2003 Nissan Z car for a mid 90's Nissan Z car?  Why would I trade it for a Mustang (which is comparable in many ways, but worse in quality and cornering)?  If that idiot can't sell his impala what makes him think I'd want to trade my car for his so that I could sell it for him?  If he can't sell it, how could I?

I may never buy a non-pickup again.

How did you move deer with only a sports car?

Dad, with his truck, happened to be hunting every time that I shot one.

I was hoping to shoot a nice one, strap it to the roof, and then find a girl to pose on the hood, and then take a picture of the whole thing.  Caption: "I had a good day."

But it never came together.

My bow did fit perfectly in the back.

What's with the stupid blog title?

Spoot comes from a late 90's cartoon called Angry Beavers.  They used it in place of expletives.

Suggestions for a better tagline appreciated.

Angry Beavers:

New [to me] Blogs

My blogroll is constantly changing.  Here are some new editions.

Introverted Playboy

Meet women in the summer outside bars and clubs

The summer gives us tons of ways to meet women. Bars and clubs are the go-to venues for single men looking to meet someone. But they aren’t for everyone. Luckily, you aren’t a slave to the night life when it comes to meeting girls.

Here are some great places to meet women in the summer outside of traditional bars and clubs. You won’t have the benefit of alcohol to soften social relations, but people are generally more open, laid back and needless to say, the women are wearing less clothing than in the winter.
...

Cop Block

Omaha Nebraska Officer Puts His Gun to the Back of My Head

Some friends and I were standing at Qt Gas Station on 103rd and Fort street on 5/14/13 around 2:15 am. We had just gotten off our bikes and we all went in and bought some food and drinks.

We were standing there eating and talking when two officers pulled up in a black and white Chevy Tahoe. I saw that the officers were looking at my firearm that was on my side in a holster. I didn’t really think anything of it because I have an open/concealed carry permit, so I just went on with what I was doing.

I saw that they started walking our way, but I was still not worried about it. The officers approached us asking everyone how we were doing. One of the officers then walked in between all of us. The officer then proceeded to walk behind me without saying anything more. He then turned and said, “Who do you think you are?” then pulled his firearm out and pointed it about an inch from the back of my head, like I was being executed, and ordered me to get face down on the ground. Not knowing what was going on, I did what was ordered of me.
...

CRUISING DOWN THE COAST OF THE HIGH BARBAREE

The End of Europe 

Muslims have been rioting for six days in Sweden now. The official response it to "do as little as possible." The police, which are disarmed like all good European police, are following a politically correct strategy of simply pretending Muslim rioters don't exist and hoping they go away. What they are doing is going after Swedes who try to defend their neighborhoods.

Now, I've got little commentary to add on how European governments got themselves to this insane place. It does confirm, however, that leftism is an incoherent system of taboos, not an actual ideology. Suffice it to say that the political left is following its insane self-hatred to its own conclusion. I hope that Europeans will realize their political classes and governments are fundamentally malevolent and hostile toward their own interests.

What we are seeing is what the collapse of European society will look like. European governments are afraid of Muslims and, more importantly, afraid of failing to hew closely to the egalitarian creed (the American government, despite Obama's pantywaist approach, is not intimidated by Muslims at all). Most people in Europe are more afraid of their own governments than they are of Islamic violence. That situation cannot continue, because the Muslims are continuing to escalate their threats of violence. As Europeans fear other Islamic violence more than their government, it is providing fertile soil for fascist street enforcers to rise. A government too weak to handle Muslim rioters is too weak to handle other kinds of street gangs, and people will naturally turn to whatever group they believe can and will protect them.

The governments are too busy writing welfare checks to the immigrants.

Who do you think it will be?

 Great Books For Men

what is the manosphere? da manosphere summarzied by daGBFM

Da Manosphere circa 2013 zlzozozl
(1) Man up and marry those buttocked sluts (Blue Pill William Bennett)
(2) Build a life of butthext buttthexting beta’s future wives lzlzozozlz (PUA)
(3) Forsake butthext and all owners of said buttholizozlzlzo (MGTOW)
(4) Be patient and pray 4 da buttcocking to stop (Traditional)
(5) Try to stop the buttehxting from within da matrix (MRA)
(6) Let them eat bbutthext. (Neocon)
(7) She says she’s only been buttehxted seven times by four guys and is as good as new as she repented and da minister forgave her as he was one of da four guysz. (Churchian)
(8) voyage beyond da butthext and Read the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN and restore honor to civilization via a renaissance lzlzlozlz. (GBFMster)

3D Printed Guns Are Really Cool

Some links from the pioneering creators:

Defense Distributed

DEFCAD

An interview:

Progressive Economics Don't Work, Example #52,873

I was skimming across the Wikipedia article on Ethiopia (Naughty Nomad's a fan) and I discovered the following passage:

In the beginning of the 1980s, a series of famines hit Ethiopia that affected around 8 million people, resulting in 1 million dead. Insurrections against Communist rule sprang up, particularly in the northern regions of Tigray and Eritrea.

For future reference: "lefty" politics = millions killed and starved.  see: Ethiopia, North Korea, China, Soviet Union, Cambodia.....

The Good, The Bad, The Weird

Quote of the Day, 5/27/2013

"Repeal" is a word confined to the Dictionary of Racist Rhetoric. It's not acceptable in the modern, progressive world of the God-Emperor Hussein I.

-Res Publica Americana

Socialism's Final Phase

h/t: Althouse

Remember that admittedly, proudly, socialist country of Sweden? 

‘They don’t want to integrate’: Fifth night of youth rioting rocks Stockholm

For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

“The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added.

Do you suppose that anyone will read about this country that was once the prime example of socialists everywhere and understand that this, in one form or another, is always what socialism is reduced to?

What country will socialists point to now?

Free marketers can point to America (1865-1912) and Hong Kong as fine examples of economic freedom in action.

My "Beaver Lake Rapala" Struck Again!

I went fishing one day this week with an old friend that I hadn't seen in a few years.

We caught bigger fish, but when when I asked him if we should bother with pictures or just catch another one, he wisely decided to catch more.

This was merely his first of the day.

Fifty, or so, fish later I have a few things to say about catching bass:

• They're not terribly difficult to catch if you know what you're doing (and fish where there's a pile of them).
• Rapalas = fishing success
• Life's too short to fish with lures that don't work well, so don't save money and get cheaper fishing lures.
• A firetiger flavored (colored) Rapala Original Floating Minnow did most of the damage.  (I use that particular one on no other lake.)
• Jigs and Powerbait caught a few fish.
• Rapala Shad Raps rounded out most of the fish catching lures.
• The Lake St. Clair musky guides troll with crankbaits and the only color they focus on the lure's belly: white or yellow.  I wonder why they don't seem to use orange bellied lures.  (Like my Beaver Lake Rapala.)
• The joys of a used $200 boat that fits in the back of your truck are many.
• A deep diving Shad Rap can catch fish deep, shallow, or anywhere in between.
• If I were limited to two bass lures I'd go with a 1/16 oz jig and white Berkley Powergrub and a deep diving Shad Rap.

Don't Belive the Doom and Gloom

A post from Laissez Faire books (excerpts):

It’s not as if we have no precedents to learn from. In the old days when I sat around with other economists, conversations often turned to the news media’s complete misrepresentation of free market economics.

Perhaps the oddest thing about old-school media bias is that it effectively alienates more than half of the potential customer base — viewers who believe that free enterprise is better for society than big government policies. Besides driving viewers away from their product, the media’s hostility toward half the population was creating an opportunity for potential competitors.

It was this market opportunity, of course, that naturalized Australian-American Rupert Murdoch saw and exploited with the creation of Fox News. Today, Fox dominates the news business, at least in terms of profits. This is because many legacy media outfits compete for about half the market, while Fox is nearly alone in serving the rest. This experience ought, it seems to me, to attract entrepreneurs to serve the Fox viewership in the arenas of film and television.

***

As media and entertainment are often linked, it’s pretty clear that so-called liberals still have the advantage when it comes to influencing public opinion. Today, propaganda is often called “spin,” but whatever you call it, it is only one factor in opinion formation. The other big one is actual results.

***

One of the biggest cultural changes in modern times is the collapse of the image of California as “the Golden State.” Moreover, polls of the nation as a whole demonstrate a far more sophisticated appreciation of economic cause and effect than you would surmise if all you paid attention to were Hollywood and the MSM.

Ultimately, math trumps spin. Though there are a lot of people trying their hardest to convince America that it has permanently adopted European socialism, it isn’t true. Things have been far worse in the past, by all measures. If you don’t know this, you risk falling prey to the conservative doom-and-gloom machine, which I hate almost as much as the liberal scaremongers.

The reality is that our current mess will not be that hard to extract ourselves from, once we have surpassed our national pain threshold. Part of the reason is that there is so much innovation bottled up by high taxes and overregulation. As soon as federal policies change, this backlog will create very rapid growth, especially in the fossil fuel and biotech sectors.

I've no doubt that some bad things are coming economically.

Could it be that those of us who are predicting economic gloom have been taken in by those who favor the government?

Progressives wanted to claim that awful things would happen if the sequestration happened.  Other than the air traffic controllers being forced to skip days so that the awful sequester would show up, what were the side effects?

They predicted bad stuff would happen if the government stopped functioning, some of us are predicting bad stuff when the government goes bankrupt (or whatever).

How are these two predictions different?

***

Part of the reason is that there is so much innovation bottled up by high taxes and overregulation. As soon as federal policies change, this backlog will create very rapid growth, especially in the fossil fuel and biotech sectors.

I think I was right before I over-thought it:  let's get this government collapse over with sooner rather than later.

Is there a specific type of lure you like to catch bass?

 

Could be.

Debating a Leftist

found thanks to the Free Northerner

Thanks to my experience debating the left, I think Fearsome Pirate is correct in this assessment: 

In an argument, we use logic. We test principles against each other. We marshal facts. We criticize and respond. Leftists do little or none of that because they are instinctual Marxists, and Marxism is an assault on everything we take for granted.

Let's pull apart one example that tends to befuddle the right: single motherhood.

There are three incontrovertible, incompatible truths:

1. Leftists adore single motherhood when conservatives attack polyamory.
2. Leftists do not practice single motherhood (poor Democrats aren't leftists; they're just a bought constituency).
3. Leftists abhor single motherhood when conservatives attack homogamy. 

You can find similar incompatibilities on any issue---guns, welfare, the working class, you name it. Conservatives tend to attack liberals along the vector of "hypocrisy." (Libertarians don't care; whatever ends up in more sexual license and less obligation on the part of parents is fine by them.) But this doesn't actually work, because it is based on the assumption that the leftist is arguing, and will attempt to bring his thoughts and beliefs at least into line with themselves if not with actual facts. However, this isn't what the liberal is doing. He's simply trying to promote the "oppressed class" du jour and simultaneously trying to shred the established civilization, and will grab whatever argument is most handy at the time to accomplish that. If we switch topics, he will switch arguments as fluidly and easily as a Pentecostal changes doctrines.

 The rest of his post is very interesting.

"Hold them to their own standards."

I suspect that the best way to debate a leftist is to understand their thinking and hold them to their own standards. 

When I debated them in the past I often tried analogies, and pointing out how hypocritical they are.  This didn't work becasue analogies distract their small minds, and they don't care about being hypocrites.

I shall try to read more stuff from progressives and less from conservatives and libertarians.  Once I've done this I may try to debate them again.

Even Progressives Should Understand Basic Economics

I'm listening to this book talk from a progressive. 

One thing that I find rather irritating about it is how, in parts, he refers to working in jobs that have a higher purpose, or a higher morality, than working for money.

The way capitalism works, when there is no government interference, is that the people who provide others with goods and services get rewarded with certificates of performance (money), with which they can reward others for their service.

If I cook ten meals and am rewarded with 200 certificates of performance, then haven't I done more good than someone who has only cooked one meal for twenty certificates of performance?

In this example, haven't I done more good? 

Would I be more evil becasue I am richer?

Even if I only served becasue of my personal greed for more money and my own self interest, haven't I served more?

Even if you don't think that they are moral, Wal-mart does more good than all the non-profit groups in the world do.  Wal-mart does not waste resources.  A non-profit that gives more than is takes in is wasting resources.  Wal-mart's low prices means that more people can have more food and clothing then they could at higher prices.  This efficient and makes people richer which increases their standard of living.

Companies like Solyndra and Fisker (even if they are "green" and morally superior to evil capitalists) are wasting resources.  They waste raw materials and they waste the labor and effort of their employees. 

In a capitalistic world, without government interference, then person who serves the most receives the most.

The basics of economics are really very simple.  Anyone can understand them.  There is even an aptly titled book which will explain economics without complex formulas or graphs or charts.

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

First Fish of the Year

I was fishing for the first time this year on Wednesday.  Improving my deer hunting property has taken up a lot of my time.

I can tell that you're impressed.

Who to marry?

Some blogger or commenter linked to this old post on inter-racial marriages. 

It reminded me of an interesting thought that I've had.

The reason to get married is to have kids.

If you want to have kids, then you'll want them to be as successful as possible.

Your kids should have minimal disadvantages and maximum advantages.

The above linked post points out that east Asian men, and black women, are not as valued as mates as are others.

Interracial mixes, for girls, can be very good or bad.  If you have a daughter, then she'll likely turn out to be her mother.  So if her mother is good, then your daughter is likely to have the potential to be successful in life.

Ethnic Mix (& my favorite celebrity):

 

Sons may be a different story.

As we can see from the above posted data, east Asian males are the least appealing male race.  The don't have disadvantages that cannot be overcome.  And I've nothing against east Asian males (see No. 1 here).  But we know that the "Asian" genes are dominant, and if you have a kid with an Asian wife, then that kid will look Asian.

That would be a disadvantage for him.

So, even though Uncle Elmer recommends Vietnamese, I want to go to the Philippines thanks to Naughty Nomad, and some of those east Asian girls are very appealing, I don't think an east Asian wife would be ideal.

The Philippines, Brazil, and Poland sound like the most appealing places to go for girls thanks to the manosphere travel writers.  I have limited desire to visit Poland.  And Brazil has always sounded interesting for girls, culture, and peacock bass.  My favorite author's newest book even has a pair of chapters on the marvels of some of the economic freedoms in Brazil.

Ideally, if all goes to plan for me, more or less, and I want to get married, you'll find me in Brazil, not east Asia.

(East Asia is still cool though.  I had my first legal drink in Hong Kong.  And I'll continue to read more about China and Japan, and favor east Asian epic movies.)

My First Non-PG Post

hmm.....

The last post wasn't inspiring, This one is!

Also...

Boogie. Boogie. Cha. Cha Cha!

When will you lefties stop defending Obama?

from here:

The Daily Beast published an article on Saturday criticizing Obama for kowtowing to his benefactors in the oft-reviled “1%” rather than doing anything substantive to aid those among the “99%” who fell for his populist class-war rhetoric. They noted that earlier this month, Obama nominated billionaire Penny Pritzker, who’d helped raise oodles of cash for him in both his presidential campaigns, as Commerce Secretary. Pritzker’s net worth is estimated to be about seven times that of Mitt Romney’s. Obama also appointed Mel Watt, who during his two decades in Congress reportedly received more contributions from the banking sector than any of his colleagues, as head of the Federal Housing Financing Administration. Obama also chose millionaire venture capitalist Tom Wheeler to head the FCC. Amid making all these appointments, Obama found time to deliver a commencement speech at Ohio State University about how Americans need to “reject a country in which only a lucky few prosper.”

A champion of the poor indeed.

***

As dumb as Obama supporters are (I saw a bumper sticker last week that said "Dog Lover Against Romney") you supporters of republicans may be worse.  You should know better.  All politicians are awful, and I think that this idea is so overused that we do not really appreciate how true it is.

Those of you who support republicans know that government is incompetent and corrupt.  Yet you continue to support some of these politicians.  What do you have to show for it?

***

Vox noted that this latest fiasco* should be enough to impeach Obama.  He also notes that nothing will happen.

I stopped watching TV in November of 2011, one reason was because I was tired of hearing political pundits make claims to the effect of: "this scandal will really hurt [insert politician here]."  Those commentators spend so much time in Washington that they don't realize that no one cares about events like this one enough to do anything about it.

This new fiasco will be remembers by conservatives at appropriate times but nothing will come of it.

***

Everyone asks: "What can we do about it?"

Put some thoughts in the comments.


*I don't remember what this latest fiasco is about, even though I just read about it.  Nothing will happen in any case.  Any time I spend thinking about it would be time wasted.  I could be thinking about more important things; like what my favorite ice cream flavor** is.

**I'm going with strawberry.  Is simple, and yet not boring like vanilla or chocolate.

Paid Speaking

I just read that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair got paid $600,000 to give a speech in the Philippines. 

Dear Whoever paid him that,

Give me $600,000 to visit you in the Philippines and give a speech and (less my expenses for getting there and back) I'll invest every dollar into the small businesses that exist in your country.  And I'll give all of the speeches you want.

Then we can wait a year and see who has improves the lives of the Philippines more, Tony Blair with his no doubt wonderful, inspiring, and uplifting speech or my evil capitalistic investing.

Is it a deal?

Sincerely,
 

Tim
eltim164 at gmail.com

A Private Police Force

Stationary Waves has a post on a private police force.

excerpt:

The idea is that anarcho-capitalists believe society is made safer more effectively by private police forces that compete with each other to serve citizens. A specific business model has never (that I know of) been specified, not because it's inconceivable, but rather because things could be handled a variety of ways. For example, you might live in a gated community that offered its own, internal police force, paid for by homeowners' association fees. In that case, your private police force would be tied to your location of residence.

(Note: There are a lot of good examples of private security like this out there in the real world today. It is more common in developing nations, but not at all uncommon in places such as universities in the United States, that form their own police forces paid for by tuition, grants, donations, and other funding streams.) Alternatively, you might live in an area served by multiple police forces among which you choose the one that offers the best protection/service at the lowest price. Here, you might subscribe to police services that can be invoked whenever you feel you need them, or perhaps you simply wait until you need to contact a police officer, and then choose a specific force's number to call. Or maybe you call a central dispatching agency that puts out a notice that someone is in trouble, and the police forces all compete to arrive first and gain your business.

As you can see, there are many possible ways that private police forces "could work," many of which presently exist in the world today, and are fully functional. So the first point I want to make is that it is not fair to merely dismiss the idea as wholly outlandish. Not only is it not outlandish, it presently exists and you have almost certainly availed yourself of its benefits at some point during your lifetime. (If not, give it a few years, it'll happen.)

The second point I want to make is that, since it is true that private, competing police forces already exist in the world today, as do public police forces, we cannot say that the two arrangements are mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is that public and private police forces have learned to coexist peacefully with minimal occasional conflict. Therefore, the anarcho-capitalist position is not really "using private police forces," but more specifically, eliminating public police forces and letting the existing private police market expand in their absence.

Before I go on, let me summarize some of the rationale involved here. The problem anarcho-capitalists have with public police forces is many-fold. First of all, if the police fails you, you have no recourse. (More to the point, you only have legal recourse against the police "monopoly" if you survive whatever event we're talking about - which makes things worse.) Private, competing police forces theoretically address this problem by: (1) offering you more options, and therefore providing police with a profit motive to get the job done correctly; and (2) offering you a second police force to pit against the first. 

Regarding your legal recourse, it is notoriously difficult to "win against the police" in court, because the criminal justice system is weighted in favor of itself. This brings us to the second objection to public police monopolies, which is the potential for (and reality of) the abuse of police power. We need not look very far to find examples of that. Anarcho-capitalist policing addresses this problem by (1) and (2) from the previous paragraph, as well as (3) the settling of legal disputes through mutually agreed-upon and mutually hired professional arbiters who do not hold bias toward one party or the other because they are paid to be objective.

Don't you dislike monopolies?  Why would a government monopoly avoid your scorn?

Competition creates better results than a government monopoly does.

We can see what the government does for us, but we cannot see what could have been had the government not had a monopoly on the use of force against us.

We can see the public schools, but becasue we can afford to pay for public and private schools we don't know what a society all private schools would look like.  (Although evidence would suggest better reading, writing and math skills).

I say, bring it on, privatize everything.

You can count me amongst the anarcho-capitalists.

***

Ryan at Stationary Waves also points out a few problem, as he sees it with a wholly privatized police force.

I'd like to comment on one of them.  (I'd have put this as a comment on your post, Ryan, had I been able to do so without joining Google+.)

The second objection is related to the first: How do we actually know that there is sufficient market demand for a sufficiently strong police force?

 "sufficient market demand" is a subjective term

What you or I view as "sufficient" depends on what our views are.

And the market is always right.

I may not agree with the market all the time (such as having tabloid magazines near the registers at stores) but the market tells us what we the people want.  (To the extent that it is able with all of the government influence.)

To Republican Supporters,

Can those of you who support Republicans name a minor government program that has ended thanks to their efforts?  Or a major government program that has had its size reduced thanks to their efforts?

If you support Republicans becasue of their claim of favoring smaller government, then shouldn't they do things like make the government smaller?

I'm not aware of and government programs that have ended, or gotten smaller, thanks to Republican efforts. 

I am aware of thinks like the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA that have gotten bigger thanks to republicans.

Indeed the democrats are worse, but where is the force with which you criticize the republicans?

Quote of the Day, 5/10/2013

crap, i'm in the strange part of the internet again.

-in response to this video on Youtube:

Good Cops vs. Mean Cops

I recently discovered a new Wisconsin laws that says that you can be stopped and fined if your trailer-ed boat has its drain-plug in.  (They think that they can regulate the movement of zebra mussels and other invasive species.  Good luck with that.)

In the magazine article that I discovered this new law in (reading the actual rules and regulations is painful and confusing) the writer commented that there are two ways to deal with being stopped by the cops or game wardens: be very cooperative even to illegal searches or to be polite but ask for warrants before agreeing to be searched.

This reminded me of reading one of P.J. O'Rourke's books in which he commented on roadblocks in very poor countries.  It seems that the guys manning some roadblocks will shoot you if you try to evade the roadblock at speed, and so you must stop.  At other roadblocks you'll be robed or forced to bribe the roadblockers or you'll get shot, and so you should bypass these at speed.  And both styles of roadblocks look the same, so how are you supposed to know which is which?

How are we supposed to know whether to agree to illegal searches or which questions to answer when we deal with police?

Its not too difficult to find awful cops.  And I overhead a guy last week, who had just returned from the army, say that he wanted to be a cop, but too many of them are so bad that he did not want to be involved with them.  And one of the largest drug operations in Wisconsin was ended a year, or so, ago when the offending cops were arrested.

My heart nearly stops every time I see a police car, and I've never committed any crimes (other than speeding and not having a front license plate).

Then we keep giving the cops more laws to enforce: no talking on cell phones, seat belts required, drunk drivers are worse than pedophiles, etc.

Trivial problems like not wearing a seat belt (it can harm no one but yourself) would have been ignored by cops years ago, or so I'm told.  But no possible good can come from dealing with cops today, at best you'll be left with only having lost several minutes to being questioned.

***

I'd like to ask whoever it was that told me last week that we are more laissez faire than we used to be to repeat that claim.

Critisisms of Libertarianism...Seem to be Stupid

Last week a post was written for ROK about one of Ayn Rand's books of philosophy.

One commenter posted two links of critisim:

Here are a some rational arguments against libertarianism/objectivism that are far more eloquent than I could ever put together:

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot...
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com...

I shall go through them paragraph by paragraph to show that they are incorrect stupid as it turns out.

First link first:  The Liberty of Local Bullies

I have not been surprised by any of the quotes that have recently come to light from Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I grew up in Texas, remember, and I know from experience that if you talk to a hardcore Paul supporter for a reasonable length of time, these sorts of ideas are more likely than not to come up.

To start with, if one person who has an economic ideology says something bad and we can tarnish the entire ideology becasue of it, then I'll assume that the author of this statement will accept the tarnishment from all the crazy people on his side of the aisle.   (I'll bet you 10 to 1 that he'll say that the crazies on his side should be ignored, and he's totally not a hypocrite.)

Secondly, I've often heard that a Ron Paul newsletter has contained racist things in them during the 90's.  I have yet to see an actual racist quote from one of those newsletters.  Maybe they exist, but I have yet to read one racist quote.  The link included, which you would think would include evidence of racist writings to support the claim, includes no such quote.  The closest that we get to that is “only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions”.  And that is un-sourced, un-dated, and not specifically attributed to Ron Paul.  If that quote means that he is racist, then every political commenter that talks about any political election is a racist.  Anyone who comments on the "Hispanic vote" is a racist.

Thirdly, his last statement is that Ron Paul supporters will say racist things in debates.  I've been accused of racism during debates several times, including for wondering why public teachers need labor unions.  I suspect that the author of this piece would likely attribute any comment he disagrees with to racism.

So does this mean that Ron Paul's libertarianism is merely a thin veneer covering a bedrock of tribalist white-supremacist paleoconservatism? Well, no, I don't think so. Sure, the tribalist white-supremacist paleoconservatism is there. I just don't think it's incompatible with libertarianism.

What's with the name calling and over-sized words?  Other than sounding stupid, I'm not sure what the point of this paragraph is.

I have often remarked in the past how libertarianism - at least, its modern American manifestation - is not really about increasing liberty or freedom as an average person would define those terms. An ideal libertarian society would leave the vast majority of people feeling profoundly constrained in many ways. This is because the freedom of the individual can be curtailed not only by the government, but by a large variety of intermediate powers like work bosses, neighborhood associations, self-organized ethnic movements, organized religions, tough violent men, or social conventions. In a society such as ours, where the government maintains a nominal monopoly on the use of physical violence, there is plenty of room for people to be oppressed by such intermediate powers, whom I call "local bullies."

How is this hypothetical "constrained society" different from what we have now?

From what I understand, libertarians support the removal of third parties (the government) from issues where they have no business.

With, or without, government rules all of the "his local" bullies would exist.  With, or without, government rules a person would only work for a boss so long as that boss wants him to.  How is favoring the removal of government from a decision to work, or not, lessening liberty?

A person's decision to work for someone, or live with a neighborhood association is something that should be decided by that person and his potential employer, or whatever.  Libertarians argue that the addition of a third party's laws, rules, and regulations only makes things worse.

The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society - the government (the "big bully") and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.

I'd be shocked if the author of this piece has ever read even one article by Hayek or Rand.

Before reading this article I had not heard of anyone with the name of Nozick.  Apparently he wrote a book called Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which means that he sounds like my sort of guy.

BTW, someone who favors anarchy is not a libertarian.  Why are two of the first three "fundamental thinkers of the [libertarian] movement" an anarchist (not libertarian) and Ayn Rand (who did not like libertarians and so made up her own ideology of Objectivism)?

Libertarians, and this is where they disagree with anarcho-caplitalists, think that the government should exist only to protect citizens from each other (police), protect citizens from outsiders (armed forces), and to provide for a means of conflict resolution (the court system).  Notice that the first part of that is to protect people from each other.

This criticism of libertarians is just making things up.

In a perfect libertarian world, it is therefore possible for rich people to buy all the beaches and charge admission fees to whomever they want (or simply ban anyone they choose). In a libertarian world, a self-organized cartel of white people can, under certain conditions, get together and effectively prohibit black people from being able to go out to dinner in their own city. In a libertarian world, a corporate boss can use the threat of unemployment to force you into accepting unsafe working conditions. In other words, the local bullies are free to revoke the freedoms of individuals, using methods more subtle than overt violent coercion.

If someone owns something, like a beach, then why shouldn't he be allowed to to with it what he wants?

This segregation he talks about happened thanks to the government, and its rules, laws and regulations.  Can you find one example of city wide segregation that occurred without the consent and la of the laws of the government?

Rather than libertarians being racist, I submit to you that libertarians are so un-racist that they don't want any laws, rules, or regulations that involve race in any way.  Who is more racist: someone who wants people of one race treated differently under the law or someone who wants everyone treated the same under the law?

Why "corporate boss" and not head babysitter?

Not hiring someone is not "revoking a freedom."  I suggest that this person look up the definition of "freedom," as I have no interest in googling the definition for him.

I imagine his ideal employment situation goes like this.

"I have a dangerous job; would you be willing to do it?"

"No.  You are 'revoking my freedom' by offering me a dangerous job.  The government says that you are instead obligated to provide me with a safe, comfortable, at least minimum wage, paid-vacationed, paid rest break, mandatory lunch breaked, and so on, and so forth.....job.  Now where is it?"

Such a world wouldn't feel incredibly free to the people in it. Sure, you could get together with friends and pool your money to buy a little patch of beach. Sure, you could move to a less racist city. Sure, you could quit and find another job. But doing any of these things requires paying large transaction costs. As a result you would feel much less free.

Other than removing an unnecessary third party, how would bosses hiring and firing people be any different?

I suspect he thinks that someone is obligated to provide a beach, a less racist city, and a safe, high paying, paid vacationed........job for everyone.

How is forcing someone to provide a beach, and so on.... for someone else "freedom?"  Who is supposed to provide the things that he wants?

He has the words "freedom" and slavery mixed up.  Were I to debate this person, I would need to define words like these for him. 

Now, the founders of libertarianism - Nozick et. al. - obviously understood the principle that freedoms are often mutually exclusive - that my freedom to punch you in the face curtails quite a number of your freedoms. For this reason, they endorsed "minarchy," or a government whose only role is to protect people from violence and protect property rights. But they didn't extend the principle to covertly violent, semi-violent, or nonviolent forms of coercion.

Somebody get this guy a dictionary.

Libertarians say that a person should be free to do what he wants so long has he harms no one else.

"...so long as he harms no one else."

After he's looked up "freedom," "slavery," "anarchy," and "libertarian" in the dictionary I would suggest that he actually read something by one of the libertarians [and anarchists, and Objectivists] that he so often cites.

Not surprisingly, this gigantic loophole has made modern American libertarianism the favorite philosophy of a vast array of local bullies, who want to keep the big bully (government) off their backs so they can bully to their hearts' content. The curtailment of government legitimacy, in the name of "liberty," allows abusive bosses to abuse workers, racists to curtail opportunities for minorities, polluters to pollute without cost, religious groups to make religious minorities feel excluded, etc. In theory, libertarianism is about the freedom of the individual, but in practice it is often about the freedom of local bullies to bully. It's a "don't tattle to the teacher" ideology.

I'm sure glad that I don't live in the progressives' world, where every corporation, rich person, republican, etc. is evil.

If your employer abuses you, then don't work there.  If there is actual, real, abuse then even libertarians say the role of the government is to prevent violence and resolve disputes.

Rather than having a society where, even if all the evils mentioned occur, a person is free to not participate, our article's author prefers a society where a "big bully" gets to make all the laws and resolve all the disputes.

He's said that people can leave bad situations in an ideal libertarian world, but says the price is high.  You cannot leave the dominion of a big government unless you leave the country.  Is the price of leaving higher when moving between states or moving out of the country?

Therefore I see no real conflict between Ron Paul's libertarianism and his support for the agenda of racists. It's just part and parcel of the whole movement. Not necessarily the movement as it was conceived, but the movement as it in fact exists.

Where is the evidence that racism and libertarianism are in the same movement?

Where is one quote from your specified racist exemplifying his racism?

Such a quote should look like this:

"Quote." -Ron Paul 9/5/1996 (source)

Are there any quotes from other libertarians [or anarchists, or Objectivists since you can't tell the difference] which are explicitly racist?

***

What a piss-poor criticism.

***

Rather than go through the other article, I'd like to question its author:

What gave you the right to decide what is best for someone else?

How are you so sure that what you think is best for someone else is actually best for someone else?

The Age To Marry

I see that there are a lot of blog posts written about the age at which people marry.  A related thought that occurred to me was the age of marriage for the upper class English during the 19th century, and for some time earlier. 

If you read any of Jane Austen's novels (recommended), then you may get a glimpse of what finding a spouse was like for those upper class English.

A first born son would have been given an annual income from the rent paid to his family by the lower class tenant farmers who worked his family's land.  Second sons, and so on, would have been expected to earn a living by joining the army or learning a trade.

In either case a man would spend his twenties establishing himself, and then marrying a woman around 18-20 years old when he gets to around thirty.

A woman would be an old maid if she were unmarried at age 25.

I'm all for "traditional" marriage arrangements, but when we say "traditional" we should keep in mind that that meant something different in every society, and country, and time period, and class level.

Sometimes...

...I'm accused of having poor taste in music.  I can't imagine why.

HA!

A YouTube comment for the following video:

i thought i had a lot of zappa music........i feel more impotent than a guy who had his testicles laminated!

Stupid Blogger doesn't want to upload it.  Link instead.

For Fukui's Sake

For Fukui's Sake by Sam Baldwin is an account of an English guy's two years as an English teacher in Japan.

Its what you'd expect from a first time author. 

He was sent to a small city in Japan, Fukui, but traveled around the country a bit.  His account of climbing Mt. Fuji is interesting.  Apparently you just walk to the top.  And apparently its tiring and you'll never want to do it again.  Its the same story with climbing Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro, according to Michael Crichton's Travels.

The author's comments on living in Japan and about the Japanese people are interesting too.

I'd say, however, that if you want to read a book about traveling somewhere, then I'd recommend a book from Roosh, Naughty Nomad, or Neil Skywalker instead.

Gay Sports Players

I've been reading Pro Football Talk on occasion (not recommended).

One subject that keeps coming up is gay payers.

Two stories in particular annoy me.

One occurs and reoccurs almost regularly.  This story is about some player tweeting things not deemed "enlightened" enough about gay NFL players.

The response to this is to criticize the player that is not politically correct enough, then his team issues a statement, "player X's views do not represent the views of the organization," and then the player is forced to apologize, and perhaps go to sensitivity training.

example:

The Dolphins issued a statement Monday responding to remarks posted by wide receiver Mike Wallace on Twitter, with the club saying it believes “in a culture of inclusiveness and respect, and any statements to the contrary are in no way acceptable to our organization.”

Another recent story is about the Vikings punter who has been vocal about supporting gay "rights."  He thinks that he'll be fired for his vocal thoughts on this issue.

here:

“It’s a shame that in a league with players given multiple second chances after arrests, including felony arrests, that speaking out on human rights has a chance of getting you cut,” Kluwe told PFT via text message.

I think that there are a few things that we should learn from these stories.

1. If you speak out in a politically correct way, then you should not be allowed to be fired.
2. If you think that you might get fired, then you should be vocal about gays, or whatever, then if your fired claim it was because of your views.
3. Any NFL player who is asked about his views on gays should respond with, "If I say anything other than whatever is currently politically correct, then I will be forced to apologize and sent to sensitivity training.  So put me down for whatever stupid PC statement you want."
4. It would be absolutely hilarious if a play made a big production about making a public statement, led everyone to think that he is going to announce that he's gay, and then have him say, "I like girls, etc."  Do you suppose he'd get all of the fanfare that any announcing gay player will get?

Incidentally, gays are more of an "ideological fringe: than the NRA is!

Feelings Not Facts

Where politics, and other things, are concerned its style not substance.  It seems that people favor feelings over facts too.

An article linked from Roosh's twitter:

A woman is wondering why she can't get pregnant.  She's doing everything right, after all.

I called the fertility clinic for an initial consult. There was a three month wait for an appointment, so in the meantime I booked a series of sessions with acupuncture fertility specialist Emma Cannon.  

I knew she had some bestselling books on Amazon, but more importantly, a girlfriend had run into mother-of-two Sophie Dahl in her waiting room... which was enough of an endorsement for me.

Arriving at Emma's Chelsea clinic I felt relaxed immediately. The whole atmosphere - the dove grey  walls, the pink striped couch, the smell of scented candles, the receptionist speaking in hushed soft tones - soothed me.

When I met the woman herself - think glamorous and sophisticated Earth mother - I felt immediately calm.

Rather than listen to the mean doctor who said that pregnancy is more difficult with advanced age she went to that bastion of great medicine: an acupuncturist.

A few questions for this writer:

If the acupuncturist hadn't written "bestselling books," would you still be convinced that acupuncture will improve your odds of becoming pregnant?

If the celebrity customer was someone unkindly looked upon by the UK equivalent of People, Cosmo, Us Weekly, would you still be convinced that acupuncture will improve your odds of becoming pregnant?

If the walls of her office were green instead of "dove grey,"  you still be convinced that acupuncture will improve your odds of becoming pregnant?

***

I think I understand Chateau Heartsie's subtitle better after reading this part of that article.

After asking questions about my health, my relationship with my husband and my personal history, she looked me in the eye and said: 'Based on what you've told me, I have no doubt you will get pregnant, Ashley, you just have to be patient for the right moment.'

where pretty lies perish.

***

Its feelings not facts, and style not substance.