Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin has called Antifa a “gang”* and clearly believes they will cause mayhem if right-wing speakers show up in Berkeley.
Well, that seems to be it for me using Firefox as my main webbrowser in the near future. The clearly Social Justice Warrior oriented people in charge at Mozilla (ask Brendan Eich), have now decided to join Facebook and others in the political and media elite in seeing a major threat in “Fake News”, aka news that is inconvenient to their mainstream, status quo propaganda narrative. If they were truly against Fake News, after all, we should have been able to expect their website to start blocking the Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times, as well as any other piece of elite media that the Podesta emails have revealed were in Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s pockets. Continue Reading
At his Steemit account, fellow Dutch libertarian rvanstel blogs a case for Objective Morality. Obviously, I believe in objective morality too, or I could not possibly make a case for the non-aggression principle. Without objective morality, there simply would be no right and wrong. Not for the right, but also not for the left. So any judgment or counter-judgment, and any championing of typical progressive/conservative values would be entirely pointless, as they would be no more than mere subjective opinions; subjectivity on the basis of which opponents could not be condemned. Continue Reading
On Lew Rockwell, Jack Perry had this to say about the actions of Trump thus far:
I’ve tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and have applauded some of his actions. However, I can’t do that anymore. What I’m seeing is the same thing I couldn’t abide about Obama: The executive order dictatorship. We have invested the president with the power of passing policy without the proper actions of Congress and Senate. Mark my words, this is going to bite all of us. What, he sends an executive order telling SecDef to hand him the wish list of military spending? Ships, planes, and other weapons they want? Oh, I’m sure this is going to cost us, too.
Sorry, readers, I cannot support this man in good conscience. I am seeing the same executive order end-runs around due process of law that Obama did. Again, we are headed into tyranny with this. One man is not supposed to have this kind of power. I didn’t agree with Obama doing it and I’m darn sure not going to be a hypocrite and support Trump doing it, no matter what reasons are given. So, that said, I cannot support this man. What he’s doing is not right.
Now, it is certainly possible to criticize the very specific ends that Trump is looking to reach with the means of executive actions. But is Jack Perry REALLY suggesting that executive action as a means is intolerable no matter the ends? Continue Reading
The initiation of force against innocents by one person is WRONG.
The initiation of force against innocents by a group is WRONG.
The initiation of force against innocents by a group delegating this initiation of force to another group on their behalf is WRONG.
The initiation of force against innocents by a government as a result of a group of people voting on it is WRONG.
An action that in itself is WRONG, does not become RIGHT when a larger number does it, nor when they delegate the action to an armed group of proxies and call it “government.”
There is NO argument that gives logical or moral legitimacy to the opposite.
The following article tries to make some kind of ‘libertarian’ case for state welfare. There are several logical flaws in it which I will point to and explain.
The italic and yellow text is from the author of the piece. My response is the ordinary text underneath.
As a libertarian, I try to judge the abstract legitimacy of any institution or government policy by asking whether it would exist without a state to uphold it.
Libertarianism itself does not ask whether any government policy is legitimate by wondering if such “policy” would exist without it. Libertarianism only concerns itself with the question of the legitimate use of force. Even if some policy could be considered good or even necessary for some people, if it wouldn’t exist without government it would still not legitimize a government policy for it. One very obvious example is non-discrimination laws. Many people abhor discrimination, but discrimination of all kinds, the sole exception to which is discrimination by force, would be allowable. The existence of non-violent discrimination does not legitimize anti-discrimination laws by state force. Precisely because they would be based on force. No government policy whatsoever is morally legitimate, regardless of what it aims to do, because it is based on the initiation of force.
Psychologic Anarchist knows how it’s done.
Step 1, child-rearing: destroy the child’s emotional circuitry through culturally accepted abuses, including spanking and coercing, which occurs throughout childhood, so the child only knows fear and resentment.
See the other steps that turn children into monsters here.
Hey, Libertarians: It’s Austin Petersen or Bust in 2016
Bust it is. Because if this fawning supporter of Austin Petersen is anything to go by, then Austin Petersen is an imposter and saboteur, and destructive to the libertarian movement and philosophy.
Let’s investigate why. Continue Reading
At ISideWith.com, someone posited a stance on whether or not there should be any background checks before the purchase of fire-arms.
“Libertarian in Paris, TN” said:
“no. the government has no right to tell an individual what products they can and cannot buy.”
Leave it up to progressives and other gun control zealots to come up with some of the most retarded types of responses imaginable from a logical point of view, in some cases a moral point of view, and as a result of omissions of important facts.
Let’s take a look, shall we? Continue Reading
Well, at least to some degree.
West Virginia lawmakers have managed to override a veto by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of a bill that would allow adults to carry concealed handguns without a permit.
The Democratic Tomblin used his veto to override peoples’ second amendment constitutional right to bear arms but the West Virginia legislature didn’t let him get away with it. The state’s house of delegates and the Senate completed the override of Tomblin’s veto with a vote of 23-11. The vote was bi-partisan in both chambers, therefore a number of WV Democrats deserve credit in this particular case. Continue Reading