“Credit expansion cannot increase the supply of real goods. It merely brings about a rearrangement. It diverts capital investment away from the course prescribed by the state of economic wealth and market conditions. It causes production to pursue paths which it would not follow unless the economy were to acquire an increase in material goods. As a result, the upswing lacks a solid base. It is not real prosperity. It is illusory prosperity. It did not develop from an increase in economic wealth. Rather, it arose because the credit expansion created the illusion of such an increase. Sooner or later it must become apparent that this economic situation is built on sand.”—Ludwig von Mises
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”—H.L. Mencken
“True liberty cannot exist apart from the full rights of property, for property is the only crystallized form of free faculties…The whole meaning of socialism is a systematic glorification of force… No literary phrases about social organisms are potent enough to evaporate the individual, who is the prime, indispensable, irreducible element.”—Auberon Herbert
A man at a bar in Murrieta, California ribbed an off-duty cop that he ‘suck[ed] at darts,’ the cop, 42-year-old Dayle Long, reportedly responded by pulling out a gun and executing him in front of a shocked crowd in an incident one man described as ‘the most horrific scene I’ve seen in my entire life.’
Chris Hull, a 39-year-old Temecula resident, said he was inside the bar and saw the shooting happen.
Hull said he witnessed a man walking up while Hull and a group of friends were playing darts. The man reportedly identified himself as an off-duty cop and started a discussion with the group about darts.
“We were playing darts, and he says ‘I’m better at darts than you are,”’ Hull said.
“My buddy says, ‘Aw, you suck at darts.’ (The man) says, ‘That’s why I’m a cop, I can do whatever I want to do.’”
Hull said his friend, identified only as Danny, asked the man, “Really, you can do anything?” The man then pulled out his gun, Hull said, and after the group repeatedly asked him to put it away he “pops three rounds into my friend Sam.”
Hull identified his friend as Sam Venettes. He didn’t answer a request for Vanette’s age or hometown, but said he was a “hardworking guy” who “works three jobs.”
Police have not released any information on the name of the victim.
“I just watched the most horrific scene I’ve seen in my entire life,” Hull told Patch.
“This is the worst day of my life.”
It should be noted, the cop was a 10-year veteran of the force.
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers…. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.”—Aldous Huxley
…the horrifying story of Nick Christie, a 62-year-old Ohio man who was detained by the Lee County (FL) Sheriff’s Office for being publicly intoxicated. While Christie’s wife asked that he be taken to the hospital, Lee County cops decided instead to strip Christie naked, tie him to a chair, cover his face, and then pepper spray him repeatedly, until he died.
Maybe there’s a legitimate law enforcement reason to strip a man naked, strap him to a chair, tie a “spit hood” around his mouth, put a hood over his head (see video at the link), and douse him with pepper spray until he dies. That’s what sheriff’s deputies in Lee County, Florida did to 62-year-old Nick Christie two-and-a-half years ago.
I certainly can’t think of any such legitimate reason. But Lee County State’s Attorney Stephen Russell apparently can. Because he cleared the deputies involved of any wrongdoing.
“He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy. On the other hand, he who resists another’s attempt to control is not an aggressor, an invader, a governor, but simply a defender, a protector; and the nature of such resistance is not changed whether it be offered by one man to another man, as when one repels a criminal’s onslaught, or by one man to all other men, as when one declines to obey an oppressive law, or by all men to one man, as when a subject people rises against a despot, or as when the members of a community voluntarily unite to restrain a criminal.”—Benjamin Tucker
“The market process is thus seen to be a leveling process. In a market economy a process of redistribution of wealth is taking place all the time before which those outwardly similar processes which modern politicians are in the habit of instituting, pale into comparative insignificance, if for no other reason than that the market gives wealth to those who can hold it, while politicians give it to their constituents who, as a rule, cannot.”—Ludwig M. Lachmann
I don’t actually know of which post you speak, but the absolute falsity of such charges are obvious to anyone not blinded by an ideological desire to baselessly smear the opposition.
Sometimes, the best response is rolling like Buddha and letting that nonsense bounce off your belly like a grain of rice tossed by a child. Because when philosophical and intellectual rivals must resort to sweeping ad hominem, their puerility reveals their desperation.
There may be genuine points of contention about how the most just and prosperous society would function. Data and morality may be considered and parsed in earnest discussion. But, and perhaps I only speak for myself, once an ideological opponent accuses me specifically of dishonesty or nefarious ulterior motives, I take it as a sign that no thoughtful or productive conversation can likely be continued.
So your impulse to chuckle is right: there’s no need to respond. This type of commentary is meant for their echo-chamber of like-minded ideologues or unthinking followers. There is nothing that can be said, no matter how clearly truthful, that can dissuade those looking for validation of their own prejudices (frankly, this can sometimes be true for our side as well).
Though if you must respond, know who you are truly addressing: not the aforementioned entrenched ideologues or unsophisticated acolytes, but those spectators who do think and consider arguments. Therefore, responding to insults in kind will not place you in their good graces and may close an otherwise open mind.
If you’ve been revolted by the fact that every $40,000 electric Chevy Volt sold by Government Motors enjoys a $7,500 rebate at the expense of taxpayers, then better have some Dramamine before you read any further. James Hohman of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has calculated that the total subsidies—direct and indirect, federal and state—poured into this white elephant could add up to $3 billion or $250,000 for every Volt sold to date. And this is not counting the 26 percent ownership that Uncle Sam still has in the company.
The appellant is Terrance Crossland, who is asking the court to overturn his conviction on two counts of assaulting a police officer. Last April, Crossland and his cousin were approached by two D.C. Metro officers on patrol “to gather information about a rash of recent shootings and drug sales in the area.” Crossland was mowing his grass while smoking a cigarette. The police acknowledge that neither Crossland nor is cousin were doing anything unlawful. The two men were told to turn around, put their hands against a fence, and submit to a search. By both accounts, Crossland initially complied, then said, “Fuck this shit. I’m tired of this.”
Police say Crossland then elbowed one officer in the head, at which point he was punched, taken to the ground, kicked several times, and pepper sprayed. Both the trial court, the appeals court, and even the prosecution acknowledge that because Crossland was doing nothing wrong before the incident, it was illegal for the police to stop, detain, and search him. Nevertheless …
… as the trial court recognized, the APO statute “prohibits forceful resistance even if the officer’s conduct is unlawful.” Dolson v. United States, 948 A.2d 1193, 1202 (D.C. 2008) (explaining that the rationale for this rule is to “deescalate the potential for violence which exists whenever a police officer encounters an individual in the line of duty”) …
So even if the police illegally stop you, detain you, and beat you, you aren’t permitted to resist. Just roll over and take it. Submit. …
The trial court, the appellate court, and the prosecution all concluded that these two cops broke the law, yet still, all three have deemed that the cops’ testimony is more credible than the testimony of Crossland, his cousin, and the other witnesses—none of whom was doing anything wrong before the confrontation. … Only one party broke the law before the confrontation. But because that party sports a badge and works for the government, they still get the presumption of credibility over the guy who was minding his own business, his cousin, and the other witnesses.
The dreary lesson from this …: Police need only the flimsiest of suspicions to stop you on the street, detain you, and search you. But … if they don’t even have that, they aren’t likely to suffer any serious sanction for an illegal search. Nor is a court likely to believe you should you try to complain. If you resist—physically or verbally, whether the search was legal or illegal—they can bring the hammer down, with damn-near impunity. And after the violence, you’ll be the one going to jail.
Daniel Hiler ran out of gas during an evening motorcycle ride in Oildale, California on December 16. While walking his bike to a gas station, the twenty-year-old father of two ran into a family friend named Chrystal Jolley. The pair was crossing a street at a widely-recognized intersection when they were fatally blindsided by a vehicle traveling at a speed well in excess of the posted speed limit. Despite the fact that darkness had descended, the driver hadn’t turned on his headlights. The victims were killed instantly.
Within minutes, police swarmed the scene, and arrests were made — none of which involved the driver, Deputy John Swearengin of the Kern County Sheriff’s Office. The four people arrested were relatives of the victims, who got into what the Sheriff’s Office described as an “altercation” with California Highway Patrol officers when they attempted to identify the victims. …
The posted local speed limit (for Mundanes, of course) is 45 miles per hour. According to several on-scene accounts from horrified witnesses, Swearengin blew through the intersection at a speed of 75–90 miles per hour. Despite the fact that he was obviously in a hurry, Swearengin didn’t activate his siren or running lights — or, according to at least one eyewitness, his headlights.
Sheriff Donny Youngblood told the Bakersfield Californian that the deputy “was responding to a report of a stolen vehicle with a suspect still at the scene” when he struck his victims. This would mean that he was not involved in a high-speed pursuit. Furthermore, as some skeptical witnesses pointed out, the main office of the Sheriff’s Department is about a mile or two west of the intersection where Swearengin killed Hiler and Jolley — and he was headed that direction at the time of the incident. This suggests that the deputy wasn’t motivated by an urgent call from an isolated and over-matched comrade, but rather engaging in a favorite pastime of uniformed adolescents — “Kickin’ ass and drivin’ fast.”
Some residents of Oildale, a suburb of Bakersfield, describe the Kern County Sheriff’s Deputies as notorious for their habit of speeding through the town’s narrow streets, blithely ignoring speed limits without bothering to activate their lights or sirens.
“They have no consideration for the other public,” objects Michelle Cameron, a distant relative of Jolley. Her assessment is seconded by Forrest Faulkner, an 11-year resident of Oildale who claims to know and be on good terms with most of the department. “They’re great people,” Faulkner maintains, even as he criticizes the department’s habit of putting the public at risk by needlessly reckless driving. “I’ve seen sparks fly from the car’s undercarriage when they hit a dip,” Faulkner recounts.
Under section 192 [c] of California state law, the deaths of Hiler and Jolley resulted from an act of vehicular homicide — one involving “gross negligence,” and therefore a felony. No charges have been filed against Swearengin, and the deputy faces only an “administrative” inquiry, rather than a criminal investigation. The outcome of the administrative procedure isn’t exactly shrouded in mystery.
“What gets me is we already know the outcome,” complained Anna Rodriguez, one of Hiler’s friends, to a local reporter. “The officer will go on paid suspension. Then they will say he didn’t do anything wrong. And that will be the end of it.”
“Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.”—Joseph Sobran. (via anarchyagogo)
Re: Medicare, income taxes, and even the dollar bill.
It’s hard to believe, I know, but anything that’s not actually in the Constitution is - wait for it - unconstitutional. See: Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Of course, technically income taxes are, unfortunately, constitutional per the 16th Amendment. Though it, along with the two amendments that followed, are about as counter to the spirit of limited, federalist, and balanced government that was envisioned by most of the Constitution’s framers.
But such is what happens with all government, no matter how well-intentioned: eternal expansion for the benefit of the connected at the expense of the individual.
If you really don’t want to get into the philosophical and practical details of the bipartisan folly that is our overlords' imperialistic foreign policy when someone says “our soldiers are fighting to defend your freedom to talk sh*t about them,” then simply offer this retort:
It would be a grave insult, then, for me to not exercise that very freedom for which the military has so bravely sacrificed.
“I want to express my solidarity to all those who struggle for a free life in Cuba. … I cannot go to Cuba to relax on the beach and keep my eyes shut, while dozens of political prisoners are behind bars there.”—Vaclav Havel
Newt Gingrich’s campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He’s at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.
“I think the argument against regulation is extremely hurt by the recent economic collapse.”
Begs the question, why is it hurt by the economic collapse? That completely ignores all the regulations, that of which there are more than ever.
Shouldn’t we listen to the only school of thought that predicted it as early as 2002? The Austrian School of Economics has a proper methodology which explains the business cycle. Manipulating the money supply and interest rates rejects all principles of a free-market.
The argument isn’t against regulation per se, it’s against state regulation which embodies aggression (the initiation or threat of violence) and which doesn’t work, because state regulation must necessarily always create winners and losers. Big business loves regulation, it hinders competition & they’re often the ones helping craft the rules for the industry, they end up benefiting.
Market regulations work… to solve the problem of “who watches the watchers?” is that everybody watches each other, via competition. You don’t then give someone a monopoly of ultimate decision making, including conflicts involving themselves and think that solves the problem - it only exacerbates it.
“Shows what greed can do to the rest of the country, in fact the whole world, when there is not some kind of regulation in place.”
The state controls money, it’s one of the primary things they demand. To then lay the blame elsewhere is nonsensical.
If humans need to be governed, then having humans as governors simply exacerbates the problem. It is a fatal contradiction. Whilst not a fan of [Milton] Friedman, the same point is made in video form here.
Here, we use theory and experiment to demonstrate that, for a wide range of conditions, a strongly opinionated minority can dictate group choice, but the presence of uninformed individuals spontaneously inhibits this process, returning control to the numerical majority. Our results emphasize the role of uninformed individuals in achieving democratic consensus amid internal group conflict and informational constraints.
There needs to be just enough people who know anything about the issues to act as leaders for everyone else, but the majority disintegrates if there are too many viewpoints pulling in different directions.
In other words, individuals pursuing their own best interests or forming like-minded groups to pursue their happiness is bad; acquiescence to “leaders,” deference to “majority rule,” and a generally unthinking attitude are good.
“Though my heart be left of centre, I have always known that the only economic system that works is a market economy, in which everything belongs to someone–which means that someone is responsible for everything. It is a system in which complete independence and plurality of economic entities exist within a legal framework, and its workings are guided chiefly by the laws of the marketplace. This is the only natural economy, the only kind that makes sense, the only one that can lead to prosperity, because it is the only one that reflects the nature of life itself.”—Vaclav Havel
It is absolutely fair to criticize Ron Paul for not being present for the NDAA vote after repeatedly and vociferously railing against it (not that his vote would have made a difference, unfortunately, with a final tally of 283-186). Members of Congress aren’t expected to be present for every vote, though that is their duty. The word is that he knew the votes weren’t there and decided to stay on the campaign trail with only two weeks to go before the Iowa caucus (so he can, eventually, veto bills like this). Bottom line: his position truly cannot be questioned (see here and here for his own words), he simply was not there.
Still, some disappointment and criticism is certainly deserved.
But of all those mocking Paul for not being present during the NDAA vote, how many will be voting for Obama who actually signed it into law?
From the #politics tag: "For many, their biggest issue with Paul has to do with his Blame America First foreign policy positions. According to Paul, we were responsible for the jihadists crashing planes..." You would assume that at least people who get their news on the internet would realize the reality of blowback. How does reallyronpaul get promoted to that page?
The posts additionally tagged with ∆ denote my own thoughts.
Basically, in my opinion, they’ve got some appealing rhetoric and some of the right ideas on individual liberty and the market; but with support of the labor theory of value, belief in personal over private property, and aversion to all forms of hierarchy, they’ve probably got more in common with collectivism than individualism.
“From a public choice perspective, the political process externalises costs because people vote for things that will be paid for by others. Access to benefits provided by the state constitutes an ‘open access’ resource.”—Mark Pennington
If your worldview requires you to see the relationship between the citizen and the state as that of a small domesticated animal and its master, then I can get why you would find it funny to mock the seeming ungratefulness and smug selfishness of us wards of our governmental superiors. Truly, I can almost understand why you would consider acquiescence to, reverence of, and thankfulness for the state and all it does to be virtues.
This is a must read for all those who are clamoring to defend Obama for changing some language in the bill to remove its dangerous teeth.
Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.
For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):
[Click the link in the title to read details of each myth.]
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention …
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF …
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill …
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYTEditorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).
And to those who simply use the tu quoque canard that this is simply what the government’s been doing since Bush was in power…
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assuredThe New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Timesdescribed as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.
“Note that once constitutional barriers have been lowered during a crisis, a legal precedent has been established giving government greater potential for expansion in subsequent noncrisis periods, particularly those that can be plausibly described as crises.”—Robert Higgs