Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin has called Antifa a “gang”* and clearly believes they will cause mayhem if right-wing speakers show up in Berkeley.
Just in case you didn’t know, the state makes laws.
The state is also allegedly supposed to protect people, and their rights.
Which makes it seem that the purpose of laws is to protect people.
All of this is based on a completely naive view on the nature of the state, and on the way in which the state keeps its power. Continue Reading
Read the story of Donna Hylton here.
Via Twitter, on a Reddit forum, I stumbled over this horrifying story: Donna Hylton, a woman who spent time in prison for participating in the kidnapping, rape, murder, and ransoming of a gay man, spoke at the Women’s March as an advocate for women of color.
After so many, yet another blatant example of the left embracing outright criminals or those who would oppress women. Terrorist threats from celebrities, celebrities implying the president is into incest, embracing Islam and women who are pro-Sharia, using innocent children as political pawns, and now a homophobic criminal who was in jail for taking part in a kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of a gay man.
If this does not expose the vile nature of the cultural marxist left and its supposed “morality”, i don’t know what does.
P.S. for repugnant Hollywood celebs: Rosario Dawson has decided she wants to play “activist” Donna Hylton in a film based on Hylton’s own memoirs. Three guesses as to how self-critical this screenplay/film would be about her crime. Dawson has no reason not to know about this crime either, so consciously wants to play a rapist, torturer, murderer while likely minimizing or even ignoring the crime. Rosario Dawson, of course, is yet another far-leftist so this should not be a surprise.
Two brilliant podcasts (except for leftists, of course) by Trump-sympathizing Voluntaryist Stefan Molyneux. One recapping eight horrible years of President Barack Obama. The other about the anti-Trump riots the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration.
If you have the time, it really drives the point home to watch them concurrently.
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
Walter Block has written one last response in his debate with Robert Wenzel about the primacy of property rights over all.
Although In my view Block has certainly made a better attempt at stating his case this time around, he still makes several mistakes. Continue Reading
Christopher Cantwell, whom i find myself disagreeing with slightly more (see here and here) than usual lately, has been banned from Facebook for making what is nothing but a common sense statement, as well as a libertarian statement.
This being, that if people in Cologne had the right to bear arms in order to protect and defend themselves, many rape victims would likely not have been rape victims.
This notion of the right to self defense, using firearms if necessary, against violent criminals is wholly alien to the left-liberal nation state, to the point that advocating it will get you banned from a social network platform. Obviously, the expectation is that you are not only a victim, but that you should accept and resign to such a fate, even as the state itself is happily importing your assaulters and rapists. To suggest otherwise is a “violation of terms.”
As part of the debate about gun control he has with fellow Loyola faculty member (?) Christopher Brown, Walter Block posted an article listing some questions and argument in favor of gun freedom that i thought were good enough to link to here, even outside of the context of the overall debate they are having.
Thanks to Target Liberty.
From a libertarian perspective, the truth needs to be said, not only about the true nature of many cops and their behavior, and the threat they pose to liberty-minded people, but also when the cops are perhaps not entirely to blame and are just being used to further a progressive agenda fueled by racial and gender collectivism and political correctness.
What i like about Christopher Cantwell is that he can always be counted upon to whistle to his own tune, to cut through the PC bullshit even when it flies thick and hard among libertarians, and to be blunt yet honest about everyday events. Something that has had him banned from “respectable” libertarian events (if you want to call them that) and made him persona non grata for a number of ‘reasonable’ libertarians like off-and-on-again SJW Jeffrey Tucker. But also for confused, otherwise less ‘reasonable’ libertarians like Larken Rose.
Christopher Cantwell is a current example of what i admire the most, a true libertarian that nevertheless is also a pure individualist; someone that doesn’t pay worship-like respect to “names” within libertarian circles. Someone that doesn’t play nice for the sake of being ‘inclusive’ or for ‘strategic’ reasons, or looks past flaws just because someone is otherwise so strong and perhaps needed for the libertarian movement.
Cantwell is especially vitriolic and antagonistic toward law enforcement in general, so when he of all people feels that someone may only have herself to blame for her fate, it can be taken a lot more seriously than if it were to come from cop-respecting individuals.
So what does he have to say about cops, about Sandra Bland, about social justice warriors, about oppression by white males in today’s society, about #BlackLivesMatter and other intertwined issues? Read it here.
Too bad for the gun control zealots who want to disarm law abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to attacks from psychos and other criminals (after all, no psycho or criminal tends to be law abiding and therefore gun control laws will not deter them in the slightest; just look at how well the war on drugs has turned out in eliminating drugs and drug use), but as has been proven many times before, violent crime is deterred where ever there is the prospect of the victim being armed.
This is not merely an empirical result; it is a completely logical one that the reason-impaired choose not to accept.
After all, crime, like most other activities is a cost/benefit affair: what are the potential rewards for crime (whether these rewards are monetary, emotional or of any other value), and what are its chances of success and thus the potential cost of failure? Logical deduction makes clear that the larger the potential cost and the smaller the chance of success, the less likely a criminal will be to take a chance with his safety or even life. This does not mean that there will be no criminals taking chances with their safety; it does mean however that the amount of times criminals will take such chances will logically decrease.
The gun control zealots will, as they usually do, point to the various ‘accidents’ from firearm possession, but accidents are no good moral reason whatever to forcibly reduce or eliminate a right to own something. After all, many traffic related accidents and deaths occur yearly yet nobody has called for an elimination of automobiles.
Also, if a right to bear arms would not reduce crime, or cause tragic accidents and should be reduced or eliminated for that reason, then by what reason does society insist on police officers still having such a right? He may need it to fight crime and defend himself, but how is this different from the common civilian that is faced with a rapist, violent psycho or burglar? The difference between the two (police officer and civilian) is that the police officer is much more likely to be involved in situations where grave injury or death occur. Yet somehow it is the civilian that must be disarmed.
If gun control works, by what reason are the military and the police force still armed?
Note also, that where ever sociopaths go on killing sprees, the victims are much more likely to be unarmed, either by choice or by law. Yet somehow a sociopath’s actions against unarmed citizens, which are the result of the complete ignoring of, and uncaring about the law, spawns calls for ‘gun control’, when ‘gun control’ by choice or by law is precisely what left victims defenseless in the first place.
The libertarian perspective is simple: an individual, whose rights and liberties are supreme over that of any ‘group’ because it is the individual that thinks and acts, has a right to self ownership. This means that he must by definition have the right to protect that self ownership against any potential violator of that principle. Part of that self ownership is his material possessions because they are the result of his ownership of his actions as a consumer and/or producer. No other person should have the right to violate that self ownership therefore a government should not have the right to violate it either, by controlling or eliminating the means by which a person can protect his self ownership. By making an individual dependent on another person or group of persons for the protection of his self ownership, this right to self ownership is not only violated by default, it also deprives him of any effective means of such protection because it is conditional. The conditions being the efficiency, reliability, timeliness, trustworthiness, culpability, courage and numerous other characteristics of the person of group of persons that are then relied upon.