OKAY THIS IS HILARIOUS. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH.

(Source: thestatureofliberty)

2:44 pm  •  3 June 2012  •  47 notes

likeagswift:

Authority, power, manipulation, coercion, violence, aggression - these are all things libertarians are so keen to distance themselves from.

It also just so happens that these descriptive concepts; these facts of life which exist, are part of society and can be measured and known, are the results…

Just a quick note I found on Tumblr describing how coercion isn’t the monopoly of governments.

11:42 am  •  3 June 2012  •  7 notes

freedomnewsnetwork:

Romney 627 delegates 

Paul 186 delegates 

*Likely to Change by the end of today, Missouri, Washington, Louisiana, and North Carolina hold State Convention this weekend. 

You are so delusional it’s ridiculous.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates

Romney has over 1144 delegates, and he is by a wide margin, the Republican nominee. Paul will never become president, not at this pace of having less than 300 delegates. Just pathetic how paulbots keep trying to push false numbers on everyone else while complaining about how other medias are bullshitting facts.

9:56 am  •  2 June 2012  •  4 notes

I just discovered the “track” tag on Tumblr today. 

10:45 pm  •  1 June 2012

8:01 pm  •  1 June 2012  •  6 notes

‘We Are Not A Household. We Are An Economy’

- Paul Krugman

3:32 pm  •  1 June 2012  •  1 note

escapologyandme asked: I actually stumble across your blog often because I track tags relevant to the things you post, and I can never quite figure out what your ideology really is, except that you have an aversion to Libertarianism. Enlighten me, or at least point me to a post of yours that would enlighten me. Thanks!

Realism is sacrificed whenever anyone embarks on joining a political ideology or party.

Libertarians like Ron Paul have an idealistic world of private enterprise, entirely free markets, and a tiny government with no powers other than ensuring the markets aren’t being attacked by terrorists. All the while, he intends to ensure our liberties are not being destroyed by Big Mean Ol’ Government.

Government does not own a monopoly on coercion. There are plenty of rightful places where governments can step in and improve the general welfare of citizens, and they should be duly noted instead of condemned at every corner for not allocating resources entirely efficiently. Public roads, bridges, space exploration, canal building, educating the poor, feeding the hungry, etc. are all great achievements with little return on investment if any. We cannot always expect there to be incentives to do things required for the betterment of society - there was no reason for a private company to launch a ton of metal and jet fuel into space in 1969, but our government did it and we advanced the pace of research and technology in ways that private enterprise could never have achieved… after all, who is to profit with such a project at that time? 

(The environment won’t protect itself, and there is no incentive of profit behind blocking entrepreneurs from developing on beautiful landscapes)

There are also bad parts to governments - waste, wars, unnecessary subsidies, diminished liberties in the name of safety - sometimes necessary, sometimes not. 

In a democracy, we must deal with the views of everyone when in Congress and therefore the THIRD WAY is a method of government which appeals to me. Albeit it may be flawed in some instances, although it is a realistic way of progressing and growing our society into more prosperous times; after all, it is certainly better than the miserable gridlock we have seen in Congress. 12% approval of our representatives is something to be ashamed about.

Bill Clinton’s new book has a pretty spiffy title 

We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy

That philosophy can appeal to many Americans (fuckoff anarchists), and I believe it is what we should strive for. Instead of stripping government down to pre-WW1 levels of spending, we should realize that we live in the 21st century where there are terrorists ignorant of national borders; we should realize that there is a strain on the oil market and that it may be a good idea to have some other methods of supplying energy for ourselves other than importing it from unstable governments in the middle east; we should realize that the Russians are still corrupt, the Chinese government has a shitty idea of human rights, North Korea is still a brutal reality, and Syria is in need of intervention; I am not saying we can or should change all of this, but I am suggesting that it would be unwise for such a powerful economic engine to not intervene in global forces when such a world is so very tightly connected diplomatically and economically. 

We must be realistic about handling our foreign affairs and remember that our world is very much connected through the forces of economic globalization. Oil supply shocks in north Africa can create gluts in America (this is pretty obvious stuff). To withdraw our interests in the affairs of other nations would be to ignore our very apparent connections with the whole of international trade and geopolitics. 

Trickle down economics is bullshit. Your income is determined by how much I spend, and vise versa. A strong middle class is something worshiped by politicians, and yet this income inequality is getting out of control on purpose. 

There is much to say on domestic and foreign politics, however to become realistic about our approaches on these affairs and REALIZE that society changes, progresses, and evolves should be the first step towards understanding how to deal with our politics. Ideologies cloud minds and form static notions of what is good and what is bad while completely ignoring the fact that there are other people in the world for whom such policies promoted by said ideologies would not be in the beneficial position. 

Conservatism screws social liberties.

Liberalism screws economic freedoms.

Libertarians screw workers and those vulnerable to exploitation such as the poor and middle classes.

Neocons will never bring peace to the world as long as they feel butthurt about other nations acquiring uranium. 

Socialists will never adapt to the liberties and riches that men’s hearts desire. 

Ideologies are stupid and unrealistic. 

9:34 pm  •  31 May 2012

I’ve stopped watching theamazingatheist a long time ago, although this is worth a look since his arguments are pretty hilarious (and valid).

dasrosmeyez:

ron paul fails to even capture his own district! I propose Ron paul is the new LOLCOW. 

8:18 pm  •  31 May 2012  •  3 notes

The first time I heard this argument was while on a school bus headed for high school.

My argument against: I don’t believe in something for the probable benefits of belief, but rather for the logic, reason, and proof I see behind the claim. 

12:36 pm  •  31 May 2012  •  11 notes

8:54 pm  •  30 May 2012  •  1 note

Reason: The Austrian school rejects the scientific method and empirical data.

Furthermore, the Austrian school rejects most of modern macroeconomics because it cannot be reduced to micro problems.

… The title “Sane Libertarians Cannot Exist” is also appropriate for this post. 

4:06 pm  •  30 May 2012  •  35 notes

I don’t understand why people don’t just say “Capital” instead of “Das Kapital” on forums when discussing Marx, especially considering that when citing Nietzsche, people don’t usually type out the german sounding title, but instead the english translation.

Fucking Hipsters.

1:02 pm  •  30 May 2012

The international mantra for philosophers, or so it should be if there was one. 

8:42 pm  •  29 May 2012

Good ol’ Memorial Day

12:40 pm  •  28 May 2012

Hello everyone,

This is my webcomic. It is about the FED.

Enjoy.

7:24 pm  •  27 May 2012