Politicians quoting Rothbard is not ironic at all.
Its funny becuase they pick and choose what laws they like, so why not pick and choose what parts of philosophy they like right?
Uhhhh last time I checked rothbard believed in voting…ya know for politicians.
Are you seriously complaining someone in government quoted someone you look up to? That’s a good thing! It means libertarianism is gaining influence. Quite your whining.
Idk where you are getting at That that he supported voting, since he was an anarchist. If you are referring to his “support” of the first Bush then you are mistaken. He never actually supported him, but said he would be better than the guy running against him.
The irony is a man who’s salary is funded by tax dollars complaining about tax dollars.
You’re so obnoxious. Yes, fine, it’s ironic. So what? CAN YOU NOT FUCKING APPRECIATE THAT SOMEONE, ANYONE, TOLD THOSE FUCKERS OFF EXACTLY HOW ONE OF US WOULD HAVE? Jesus fucking Christ.
I 100% support voting when that vote helps rid of government and it’s power. It’s your duty to vote away as much government and taxation as possible when they give you the chance.
Look at New Hampshire, they voted to get rid of state income tax and it worked. Are you telling me it was wrong of them to vote for such a thing?
self-ownership asked: If any sort of war violence in the Middle East is blamed on Bitcoin I'll fucking lose my shit.
I’m assuming you are talking about Senator Kirk’s dumbass comment? Or did I miss something?
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if some terrorists own bitcoins. Just like some bankers own bitcoins as well as some McDonald’s workers and some politicians and some corporations.
It’s really silly yet really effective when politicians vilify an object or process by pointing out that evil people use that object. Just goes to show you how stupid people are to believe and fear that object because of the connection.
It’s like saying Range Rovers are evil because terrorist financiers drive them.
My favorite nonsensical government idea is carbon taxes. First the vilify industry, then they outlaw it and then they tax it and the last step is to allow companies to pollute by paying for and even buying additional tax credits. In the end, you haven’t ended pollution, you’ve simply profited from it. But that’s what government does best, profit from the misfortune of the people.
This is open totalitarianism .
Relax, it hasn’t gone that far. It would only eliminate filibusters for specific types of nominees.
It hasn’t gone as far as blocking all filibusters.
But that’s the end game. It’s like connect four. You don’t want to line up too many things in your favor in case you lose power over the office, house, senate or the office of the President. But you do want to slowly position yourself for when the time comes and you can completely shut out the other party once and for all.
Doing things too quickly can result in a dangerous backfire of power confiscation, leaving your opposition in charge and ready to shut the door.
There are guys who get paid to literally play theoretical legislative chess and to plan out when to make moves and when not to. Everything in politics is calculated. Everything.
No one has done more in proving government incompetence than government itself.
Anonymous asked: What do you think is going to happen after the senate meetings in regards to bitcoins?
The price started to fall just before the hearing started, from a record high of $660+, it’s down around $630 now.
Anyway, I think that it will, if anything, get a small bump down. Then again, that depends on the tone of the hearing. But so far, no one is calling for a shutdown of BTC exchanges and the general theme seems to be that “if bitcoin and exchanges and wallets comply with existing laws, we don’t have a problem”.
Rand Paul as President might be the worst thing that would happen to the liberty movement.
wouldn’t focusing any efforts toward the presidency be a defunct move at this point? Are you truly convinced we haven’t passed the point of no return, so to speak,…
The thing about free riders is, no matter what the govt does, there will always be a significant number of people who can’t take care of themselves. I think we are going to have to decide if these people have a value as humans, or if they don’t. If not, we need to cut our losses and quit pretending. If they do, we need a way to actually take care of them. I think this will be the biggest turning point of the next century.
All humans have value. (yes, all of them).
I think that there is value in preventing poverty or helping those in poverty for those who live above it.
#1, these people need to buy what you’re selling.
#2. these people need to work for you and produce goods.
#3. there is “critical mass” that is required for both upholding a certain life style that the rich have become accustomed to and also for maintaining the existence of humanity.
There are probably other reasons that I missed, but I think these 3 are important enough aspects to motivate the rich from protecting the less fortunate.
For example, if the gap between rich and poor is too great, you have the Bolshevik revolution of Russia. Where the poor were so fed up and so great in number that the upper class was no longer able to control or suppress them. Same thing happened in America in the 1770s and other parts of the world. If you let the perceived gap of the quality of life widen to far, eventually people will revolt.
We’re headed in that direction, as is a large portion of the world.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
It could go in many ways. There could be a peaceful revolt and revolution, as we saw in Iceland. Or we can have the Arab Spring, with civil war burning throughout the country.
There’s also no real way to predict the outcome of such changes, peaceful or violent. The government can win and instill worse regulations. A real police state. (ROBOTS AND DRONES!) or the worst ideas of the people can win and we live in socialism (MOTHER FUCKING MARX! SEE YOU IN HELL ŽIŽEK!!!)
It’s not just hard to predict where we’ll end up, or how, it’s ridiculous to do so. But given the current path, we are certainly on the cusp of some kind of push-back by the vast public. It’s actually begun, as I mentioned, in parts of Europe and the Middle East.
I think the next big one to watch out for is in Asia. Pakistan, Russia or North Korea. I’ll hold back on putting China on there because their government so far has been smart enough to keep pushing towards more deregulation, freedom and free market economics. Sure, it doesn’t seem like it, but it’s slowly evolving. Hong Kong is China’s grand experiment and the eventual position in which China hopes to find itself. Hong Kong is also the world leader in many respects (economic and civil), so it’s a good bulls-eye for China.
Just say no to Socialism.
If we can avoid a socialist revolt in any of the major countries, I think we’ll be safe. (I’m looking at you, America!)
Rand Paul as President might be the worst thing that would happen to the liberty movement.
wouldn’t focusing any efforts toward the presidency be a defunct move at this point? Are you truly convinced we haven’t passed the point of no return, so to speak, regarding the level of corruption of the U.S. bureaucratic institutions?
Yes and no.
The system is clearly broken. But no “system” is ever broken beyond repair as they aren’t physical. They are simply processes that can be restructured, reorganized, reworded, discarded, etc.
It will probably be one massive effort (or a series of massive efforts) to fix it, but it is doable. Not sure how far we are from such a “reboot” of democracy, but it’s bound to happen. It’s historically inevitable.
I, for one, look forward to the excitement of the next constitutional convention. I think we’ll see a lot of libertarian/anarchist influence in it, especially given how the youth of this country is leaning.
We’ll probably see a lot more technology integrated into the government (democratic process). We’ll probably see electronic (mobile) voting. Continuous voting (daily, weekly, monthly votes directly from your phone, computer or any electronic device). People will be able to vote directly on any law they want to vote on.
Another change I see happening is how many options we get when we do vote. No more the lesser of two evils. Pick as many names as you want. Rank them in order. Algorithms will calculate the rest. Heck, we might not even have “representatives” anymore, at any level of government. Maybe just a giant IT staff. Maybe no real staff at all but a giant open source code which can be audited at anytime by anyone to ensure that all functions are proper and up to par.
Taxes will probably come into question, as will money/currency. I see taxes becoming a voluntary thing, where one would only pay for things they voted for. None of us will have the same tax percentage to follow but more of a receipt, like one you get at a grocery store for your purchases. And that receipt, probably digital, can validate your usage of those items you chose to fund, essentially taking care of the “free rider” problem to a certain degree. This is as close to free market government as one can get. Taxation on an individual level. No more blanket extortion of the few by the many (or the many by the few!).
So, no, I don’t think the system is irreparable because it’s just a figment of our imagination. It’s just an idea. We can fix ideas, no matter how broken they seem.
There’s a reason government, big business and ivy league schools all have overlapping membership: They all target and acquire the best talent in the field.
This is how it works.
Sorry, there is no conspiracy here.
Sure, Ivy League schools don’t get all the best minds, but they sure filter down to the majority of them. And yes, top companies don’t hire most of these bright individuals, but they hire a large portion of them. And yes, some of these people have made enough money and connections and are evil enough to go into politics. And yes, they bring along their closets and most trusted friends from their prior stops in big business and ivy league schools.
There is no conspiracy here. It’s familiarity. These are the people with whom they are familiar and comfortable with. It’s easier to hire someone you know and trust than it is to go out and filter through the other 350 million or so people who you’ve never met.
This is also why many politicians and their programs fail, even if they have some of the brightest minds helping them. Because they aren’t always made for the job.
If you need a lawyer and your sister is a successful lawyer, what do you do? Do you go out and find a different lawyer or do you hire your sister? Only an idiot would try to reinvent the wheel.
This is why those Venn diagrams trying to point out how many ex-Monsanto employees work in government and how many ex-feds work in Monsanto.
If Monsanto, who has to work with and sometimes around gov’t, didn’t go out and hire the brightest minds who are most familiar with government policy and policy-makers, I’d consider them a failing company. Better yet, they’d probably not be Monsanto. They would have probably failed and faded off into the sunset.
But Monsanto isn’t a failure, they are a successful company and that’s because of how and who they hire.
Let’s not be stupid and think there is a conspiracy here. It’s just smart business.
It’s coming, I can feel it.
Now that we know the NSA has records on the entire human population that’s connected to the internet, we can also conclude that they know where all the libertarians/volunteerists/anarchists/anti-government folks are.
Sooner or later, they’re going to come for all these people in one capacity or another. Either by paying a visit, putting them on no fly lists, confiscating property, including guns. Maybe even arresting them or putting them in a “secured” camp. Not sure how or when, but I have a feeling that it’s going to come.
The only positive note I can add to this is that there is a rapidly growing disdain among the people. Not only does less and less of the population trust the government, more and more people are figuring out that they actually hate the government.
And this change of heart isn’t just in the USofA, it’s world-wide. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there has ever been a decade in human history filled with so much revolution and civil war as we’ve seen since the start of the 9/11-War on Terror era.
It seems like every single year, at least one country is going through some form of revolution. Either a complete overthrow of the government or a complete revamping of elected officials. It’s been astonishing to witness. The shame is that most of humanity has no idea how extraordinary of a time they are living through. The only event that could top what we are experiencing would be if aliens from another planet touched down in Central Park. Historians a thousand years from now will recite the events of the 2000’s to the 2010’s to their students with immeasurable zeal.
And yet, my mind pulls me back to the present day as we live it now and a bit of fear crawls back into my nerves. It’s not a fear of anything specific, more like the fear one gets from thinking to much about what swims beneath while taking a dip in the ocean. The government in mysterious and unpredictable. I stay wondering not if but how they will react, because they will react. They must react, given the throbbing discontent that’s flowing through the public.
Why don’t we force everyone to buy a Mercedes S-Class?
The Mercedes Benz S-Class is one of the safest cars on the road. Driving such a safe car would save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives a year. If we got everyone to buy one, it will bring the cost down from 100k a car to 70k. I know most can’t afford it but those of us that want it can get a 30k discount.
How do we get everyone to buy a new Mercedes Benz?
What if Mercedes helped write a legislative bill and contributed to enough campaigns in Congress. Then imagine if the original idea was pitched by a Mercedes Benz super fan who is also the President of the nation. Now top that off with the fact that no one really knows what’s in the 10,000 pages of the Affordable Car Act but the premise sounds good and the super popular President is behind it so why not?
Now imagine that the Affordable Car Act passed as law and all 300 million citizens were forced to give up their cars if they weren’t as safe as a Mercedes and to buy the S-Class. If you didn’t but an S-Class, you’d have to pay 1% of your salary to the IRS every single year until you bought an S-Class.
Let’s take it one step further and imagine that car companies started to reposes your current car if it didn’t meet the safety standards of the Affordable Care Act even though you love your current car, you picked it out yourself from a variety of choices and you’ve have it for a while and it’s right in your budget.
Now imagine that Mercedes now has a monopoly that’s enforced via a government mandate and that they can slowly increase prices, degrade the quality of their product and that you’d still be forced to buy the S-Class because it’s “the law of the land”.
How ridiculous does that sound? And yet, that’s exactly what the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare is.
Wow. I’m sorry but this is quite possibly the dumbest analogy I have ever read.
First of all, the LACK of owning an S-Class does not directly cause hundreds of thousands of lives a year. Being uninsured, however, does have a direct and empircally identifiable impact on the lives of
hundreds of thousandsMILLIONS of american citizens. 48.2 Million to be exact.
Neither does lack of owning health insurance. In fact, for the majority of people, health insurance costs them more money then they will ever benefit. That’s how insurance works.
Where lack of insurance does have an impact is if you get sick, get treatment and can’t afford to pay it back. Lack of healthcare insurance doesn’t mean lack of healthcare. Doctor’s won’t and legally can’t refuse to treat you. They have to treat you. You also don’t have to give the hospital any real information. On top of that, many hospitals, like Olive View, will treat you for free.
So lack of insurance doesn’t mean you will have a detriment.
Likewise, yes, a lack of an S-Class doesn’t mean you’ll lose your life, just like lack of insurance doesn’t mean you’ll lose your life. But lack of an S-Class in an accident means that you’re more likely to be injured or die vs being in an S-Class. An S-Class is much, much safer than the average vehicle, say a ford escort.
Second, your numerical comparisons are completely stupid. The median household income in 2013 is $50k. An insurance policy that is completely unsubsidized under obamacare would reflect about 5% of the average family’s income.
Insurance for me and my family (of 3) is $677 dollars a month, $100 more than I currently pay. That’s not 5% of income. I don’t know where you get you’re numbers from, but mine are directly from Covered California.
A discounted S-Class would cost 140% of an entire year’s income with your proposed discount. To put this in perspective, your analogy would only make sense if the median household income was in the ballpark of TWO MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Only then would the numbers be comparable.
You’re short-sighted and foolish.
A vehicle, like an S-Class has a depreciation timeline of 7 years (at least) and last much longer than that. An S-Class can easily go 10 years. That 70k would be split up over just as many years, bringing it’s yearly cost (about 7k/year) on par with health insurance, which costs me about $7k a year. Oh wow, look at that. The numbers match…
Also the affordable care act is not even close to 10,000 pages, it’s actually around 950 pages (still quite long honestly but still).
You’re right, it’s not 10,000 pages.
You’re wrong, it’s not 950 pages.
The actual legislative act is (I think) 906 pages long. But all of the regulations to enforce the law (taxes, fines, subsidies, etc) add up to
The total page count for the ACA is 10,535 pages in the Federal Registar. You can tap dance around the numbers and such, but without everyone of those pages, the law is not the same.
And I have no idea where you pulled your sob story about needing to get rid of your car, obamacare doesn’t force anyone to forfeit their existing insurance provider.
LOL. You sure about that?
What planet do you live on?
Also you clearly have NO idea what a monopoly is, because although there may be few S-class models, there are hundreds of insurance providers and they are competing in the same market.
Yes. And now they don’t have to compete with the alternative to insurance, no insurance. You no longer have an option to not buy insurance, therefore you grant the insurance industry a mandated monopoly.
This is like you wanting to ride a bike and the gov’t making you buy an S-Class. Sure, you can also buy an R8 or a Tesla or a 7 Series, but you’re stuck buying a car of a certain cost. The car companies, collectively, have a monopoly. You MUST go to them.
Obamacare is a tax. Everyone already pays taxes on their income if they exceed a certain income. The only difference now is that you get life-saving and financially protective benefits when you pay this tax.
Don’t get me started on taxes…
You could have gotten those same exact benefits without the tax and government mandate.