Archives for posts with tag: libertarian

I went to the RNC some time ago, quite some time! (Why do we say ‘some’ to mean a lot when we talk about time but just a little bit when talking about other things?) While the Maine Massacre  had happened I was in Maine sitting on a lakeknowing exactly zero about the madness of the Mainerds (“spelling?” I had to write that if I thought I may have misspelled something in school; school likes to reward those who are scared about being wrong instead of hopeful in being right) in Tampa. When I came back to the lovely mugginess of Florida I had to check out the main event. I was planning on selling some shirts with “OMG WTF” on them, the “O” was an Obama symbol.

a friend wearing a friendly shirt

But Will got stuck in traffic and behind streets that were closed down by armies of bicycle cops. I sat on a concrete barrier and looked at the people around me. Then I wrote this on my phone: Read the rest of this entry »


I always feel obligated. There are so many pressures and ‘shoulds’ and promises I made. They stack up so high and some get so subtle that it becomes impossible to do anything that I wasn’t obligated to do. I decided to start killing obligations. Bang boom kapow!

Is this really worth feeling anything?

You aren’t obligated to be on one side or the other. Every little girl feels the obligation to be that girl on Vogue. She hates herself because she’s not that alien with the blue eyes and boobs. Every Dove and mother in the world – fathers have been keeping quiet on this one – are outraged about this shit. It’s outrageous! People pay a lot of money to make you hate yourself enough to pay them to make you better. To close the gap between you and their carefully designed unreachable ideal. They use photoshop! It’s cheating! Bruce Willis’ girlfriend in Pulp Fiction said, “I don’t give a damn what men find attractive. It’s unfortunate what we find pleasing to the touch and pleasing to the eye is seldom the same.” You’re not obligated to look a specific way. But our two-party system of the fats and the skinnies is destroying any real  constructive body-discourse. The whole world demonizes the too-beautiful magazine people. BUT GOD DAMNIT THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO! Read the rest of this entry »

How did class warfare become about the Rich and the Poor? Tension between classes really has little to do with wealth; when one group has to follow laws and another doesn’t is when things get ugly. Politicians create these rifts through laws that deviate from laissez faire capitalism. When they vote themselves and their powerful contributors immunity or special privileged is when shit heads for the nearest fan… or the shit should be heading for the nearest fan anyway.

(video via Sam Selikoff)

I don’t agree with all of his ideas, but I honestly don’t know how you can watch this and still support the drug wars.  Unless you think your morality should be forced on all people…

  • you think we should actually stop fighting preemptive wars.
  • you think $1 trillion to station troops in 160+ countries is a bit much.
  • you think you should be able to do what you want to your body.
  • you think that the prohibition of marijuana is more ridiculous than the prohibition of alcohol.
  • you think your money should retain it’s value.
  • you think you go to work to earn money for you and your family, not the government.
  • you think taxes are just a little outrageous.
  • you realize you don’t have to pick “the lesser of two evils” when voting.
  • you believe in the charity of your fellow man to help one another without coercion.
  • you believe in self ownership.
  • you don’t like the idea of aristocracy (ie politicians having their own class)
  • you enjoy things that make sense.
  • you think that winning should be rewarded, not punished.
  • you understand that economies grow based on production of value.
  • you see that most of “the rich” have done more good than they’re given credit for.
  • you like politicians who will take any question head on.
  • the Constitution means anything to you.

Well, make a couple. Divide and conquer! Wahooo!

(I’m using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” very loosely in this post.  Liberals traditionally had great ideas, it’s progressives that I’m talking about.  Why not use “progressives”?  They all think they’re liberal.  Also, this isn’t a Republican/Neocon vs Democrat comparison.  It’s more of a Libertarian/Ron Paul Conservative vs The World.  So most Republicans will probably fit into the  “Liberal” title.)

There is the popular idea that liberals are the heartfelt givers and conservatives are the heartless takers.  Liberals want a world where everyone loves one another and everybody shares everything and everyone is healthy and happy.  Conservatives want to hoard what is theirs and enslave lesser people to poverty.    Liberals believe altruism, sacrifice, is the ultimate good.  Conservatives believe that they must be completely selfish (not the rational kind) to get ahead.  Liberals love life.  Conservatives love money (and eating kittens).

The ironic thing is that when these ideas take physical form, liberals are shown to be hypocrites over and over again.

Givers Takers

Liberals tend to like the idea of redistribution of wealth.  The evil fat cats who have all that money don’t deserve it.  I deserve it.  Why?  They have too much and I don’t have enough.  So their idea of giving is taking money from people who they feel don’t need or deserve it and give it to the people who in their estimation need it.  That is a philosophy of theft.  Beyond that, it also means liberals have less faith in humanity than conservatives do.  Those who believe the government needs to steal money from one group of people to give to another are offending both parties.  They don’t believe the rich will provide for the poor and they don’t believe that the poor can survive by their own means.

If the philosophy of theft is morally fucked, just think of the incentives in such a system.  The rich are punished for creating wealth, stupid.  Maybe even more stupid, though, is what it teaches the poor.  “It’s okay to steal from other people, you deserve what they’ve created.”  “You don’t need to worry about living, we’ll take care of that for you.”  “And don’t do anything to provide too well for your family, because then we’ll start taking from you instead.”  This incentive structure has to lead to less of everything.  Not only does it destroy the great production pie but it also creates social divides where there really shouldn’t be any.  Now the rich despise the poor because they are sucking on their bank accounts and the poor despise the rich because they have to rely on them.

Capitalists end up being the true Givers.  Entrepreneurs make money because they make value in excess.  They have to make something that you want and give it to you at a price equal to or less than you are willing to pay for it.  So in order to be a successful businessman you have to give more than you take, you have to be a net Giver.  (Any and all instances of businesses fucking the public are either short lived or made possible by the government, the vast majority of the time it’s the latter.)  Let’s look at the incentives in a community that believes in the philosophy of creation.  The wealthy entrepreneurs are encouraged to keep creating wealth, jobs, and value.  The poor can see that in order to be a consumer they must first be a producer.  When incentives aim at a bigger pie everyone wins.  History shows us that the only reliable way to create a better standard of living is to create a bigger pie.  If you want a bigger middle class then stop taxing away entrepreneurship.

‎”Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible.  The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.” – Ayn Rand

%d bloggers like this: