The funniest thing about the conservative outrage is their cries of "sharia law" engulfing the U.S. It's really a boy who cried wolf act for the conservative movement.
Conservative Michael Haltman of The Political Commentator who I found through Freedoms Phoenix afternoon email. (What? You think I would waste my time in actually looking for conservative blogs?) Seems to be angry or at the very least annoyed that airports in New York City and San Francisco are installing foot baths for Muslim cab drivers and why aren't Christians accommodated for their religion at airports. He also puts up a video of a rant from some guy in Brooklyn who doesn't address the point (not that I though the said ranter was going to anyway).
Conservatives point to actions such as these as "proof" (along with state court houses removing the 10 Commandments) that sharia is slowly creeping into U.S. society and that "it must be stopped!" The problem conservatives fail to see or choose to ignore is public property. Garry Reed of Examiner.com explained this in regards to the idiotic "War on Christmas". If these airports were actual private and not under the crony capitalist relationship they are currently "issues" like these wouldn't matter. Since then conservatives could then spend their money at airports that have crosses, bibles, banners that say: Support Israel and such. However despite the many times conservatives have had power to clear that they have no problem with public property as long as they're the ones in charge of it.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Anger at Public Schools
Yahoo reports of an Arizona father being pissed that his son had written on a paper that he (the child) was willing to give up his rights for security. For anyone who supports individuals rights the father's anger is fully justified.
However as the cynic that I am, one must wonder if Harvey (who is most likely a conservative) actually is against the national security state as his anger suggests or is he another who just likes to pick and choose on which forms of statism he wants to be against. Conservatives love getting angry (and justifiably so) when the state wants to crack down on gun ownership but when it comes other arms of the state such as the Patriot Act and the Drug War they welcome it with open arms. Of course if a libertarian tells a conservative to look in the mirror when they complain about the overbearing reaches of the state that they helped create the denounce them as Lew Rockwell has pointed out.
Perhaps Harvey should also ask the question why the government should be providing education in the first place.
However as the cynic that I am, one must wonder if Harvey (who is most likely a conservative) actually is against the national security state as his anger suggests or is he another who just likes to pick and choose on which forms of statism he wants to be against. Conservatives love getting angry (and justifiably so) when the state wants to crack down on gun ownership but when it comes other arms of the state such as the Patriot Act and the Drug War they welcome it with open arms. Of course if a libertarian tells a conservative to look in the mirror when they complain about the overbearing reaches of the state that they helped create the denounce them as Lew Rockwell has pointed out.
Perhaps Harvey should also ask the question why the government should be providing education in the first place.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Lew Rockwell interviews William Grigg
William Grigg who primarily writes about the many abuses of domestic police forces at Pro Libertate is interviewed by Lew Rockwell.
348. The Wacoization of Chris Dorner
348. The Wacoization of Chris Dorner
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Adam Kokesh calls out conservatives on their hypocrisy
For libertarians we've been pointing out the hypocrisy and bullshit from conservatives for years. Adam Kokesh points out that they have no real ground to stand on to oppose gun control while supporting government thuggery in other areas.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Republican Party wants your help to learn from it's mistakes
So the Republican Party once again trotting out the predicable line that happens when they lose an election; they're ready to learn from their mistakes. According to this piece they're taking suggestions on how to rebuild the Republican Conservative brand and they have their own website set up for people to leave suggestions. Of course most libertarians know that this is just a dog and pony show that liberals and conservatives run when they lose.
However if someone from the RNC task force stumbles upon my soap box here are my suggestions to get voters to vote for them;
1. Reject statism in all it's forms which includes both Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism
2. End all foreign alliances and entanglements which would include but not limited to the United Nations, NATO, OAS, etc
2a. Close all US military bases that are on foreign soil and bring all military personnel from said bases back to the US
3. End all foreign aid immediately, no weening period just cut the cord and be done with it
4. End the drug war. History shows that alcohol prohibition failed miserably, the drug war is no different. You can't say that gun control doesn't work while at the same time openly supporting the drug war since they both rely on the same "principals"
5. Repeal, SOPA, the Patriot Act and other arms of the national security state
6. End the federal minimum wage
7. End immunity laws for those in law enforcement who are caught abusing civil liberties of citizens
8. Support the real free market by ending government subsidies, federal licensing mandates, etc
9. End not just cut all taxes across the board
10. End the TSA, DHS, remove government security from transporation hubs and allow the owners of the various airlines to provide their own security
11. End eminent domain. This is nothing but legalized theft and has to stop. If a property owner doesn't want to sell his land than the state has no legal authority to take it
There are plenty more suggestions that the RNC task force can actually use but I figure these 11 would be a nice start. Not that they would actually use them mind you
However if someone from the RNC task force stumbles upon my soap box here are my suggestions to get voters to vote for them;
1. Reject statism in all it's forms which includes both Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism
2. End all foreign alliances and entanglements which would include but not limited to the United Nations, NATO, OAS, etc
2a. Close all US military bases that are on foreign soil and bring all military personnel from said bases back to the US
3. End all foreign aid immediately, no weening period just cut the cord and be done with it
4. End the drug war. History shows that alcohol prohibition failed miserably, the drug war is no different. You can't say that gun control doesn't work while at the same time openly supporting the drug war since they both rely on the same "principals"
5. Repeal, SOPA, the Patriot Act and other arms of the national security state
6. End the federal minimum wage
7. End immunity laws for those in law enforcement who are caught abusing civil liberties of citizens
8. Support the real free market by ending government subsidies, federal licensing mandates, etc
9. End not just cut all taxes across the board
10. End the TSA, DHS, remove government security from transporation hubs and allow the owners of the various airlines to provide their own security
11. End eminent domain. This is nothing but legalized theft and has to stop. If a property owner doesn't want to sell his land than the state has no legal authority to take it
There are plenty more suggestions that the RNC task force can actually use but I figure these 11 would be a nice start. Not that they would actually use them mind you
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Glenn Beck Rips Alex Jones Apart For 'Crazy' Piers Morgan Rant
While many in the libertarian movement have mixed views on Alex Jones there's no denying that Jones fights to exposes the abuses by the state. Glenn Beck however has been exposed for the conservative statist that he is that just uses libertarian rhetoric to appeal to people.
Friday, January 11, 2013
No, The US Federal Government Should NOT Take Over The NHL
Over on the SBNation blog, Battle for California the author Megladon makes the case for the government to take over the National Hockey League. Anyone who believes and supports actual free market economics knows that the state has the reverse midas touch when it comes to running a business, running a sports league wouldn't be much different. I will address several parts of the article;
This kind of action would not be without precedent in U.S. history. In the past, to serve the public interest, the U.S. government has taken over banks, railroads, airport security, and power companies.
Just because the government took over these types of business doesn't mean it's worked well for them. The bank bailout of 2008 has been viewed as a huge failure. One popular phrase coined by those of us who thought the bank bailout was a bad idea was "Privatize the profits while socializing the losses". Amtrak for years has been operation at a loss and are only kept afloat via government subsidies. As for running the power industry, you can ask Sandy hurricane victims how they enjoy having a legalized monopoly being the only ones who control their electricity.
Just think: run properly, by people who actually care about the fans and the product more than short-term profit, the Nationalized Hockey League could actually make a lot of money for the country, in the future. Rather than lining the pockets of plutocrat billionaires, every dime from ticket sales would either go back into making hockey the best it could possibly be or it would be used to pay down the national debt.
This is just silly. If anything a government run sports league would make a great product like the NHL into something much worse. Instead of individual clubs building their teams to compete for a spot in the Stanley Cup Playoffs, you have the potential of winners and losers being picked based on what may be politically popular not on actual athletic ability. With the NHL being 4th in terms of popularity compared to the NFL, MLB and NBA such tainted results does have the potential to turn off casual fans which the league has spent years trying to attract. Losses of fans would result in the tax payer having to subsidize the league even further to keep it afloat.
As for not lining the pockets of billionaires, I can understand the sentiment. There are owners not just in the NHL but also in MLB, NFL and NBA who have no desire to make their teams better, only to pocket the profits from their teams fans. Whos to say that problem would be resolved if the government took over ownership duties? Bad ownership and ownership groups are already more difficult to weed out now a days than in the past via fan boycots.
First, it is important to remember exactly who saved the NHL from this last lockout. It wasn't Wayne Gretzky, or Sidney Crosby, or your fearsome Moose King. It was Scot L. Beckenbaugh, a U.S. federal mediator. Scot is an American. He went to American schools, and his salary is paid by American taxpayers. When the NHL needed a hero, it was an American federal government employee who saved the day. Sure we still lost half the season, but it's thanks to Scot, the government that employs him, and the country that raised him, that we are getting any hockey this year at all.
That's what we do, after all. We're Americans. We may be late to the party, but when we show up we kick ass.
The second reason why it should be the U.S., and not Canada, that runs the NHL is the simple fact that the National Hockey league, as a business, is an American enterprise, not a Canadian one. The vast majority of NHL teams are based in the United States, just as the vast majority of team owners are Americans:
There is no economic or logical basis in this argument other than an appeal to nationalist sentiment. Your average fan cares less where an owner, player, coach is from but only if they produce the results that help their team win. However it should be noted that when the Atlanta Thrashers were moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada the team did turn a profit which is unusual for expansion/relocated teams which typically for the first few years operate at a loss.
In the end Mr. Megladon does not make a very compelling case to prove that a government takeover of the NHL would be a positive for the league and their fans. When in fact there is overwhelming evidence that shows that government takeovers of business never turn out the way they hope for.
This kind of action would not be without precedent in U.S. history. In the past, to serve the public interest, the U.S. government has taken over banks, railroads, airport security, and power companies.
Just because the government took over these types of business doesn't mean it's worked well for them. The bank bailout of 2008 has been viewed as a huge failure. One popular phrase coined by those of us who thought the bank bailout was a bad idea was "Privatize the profits while socializing the losses". Amtrak for years has been operation at a loss and are only kept afloat via government subsidies. As for running the power industry, you can ask Sandy hurricane victims how they enjoy having a legalized monopoly being the only ones who control their electricity.
Just think: run properly, by people who actually care about the fans and the product more than short-term profit, the Nationalized Hockey League could actually make a lot of money for the country, in the future. Rather than lining the pockets of plutocrat billionaires, every dime from ticket sales would either go back into making hockey the best it could possibly be or it would be used to pay down the national debt.
This is just silly. If anything a government run sports league would make a great product like the NHL into something much worse. Instead of individual clubs building their teams to compete for a spot in the Stanley Cup Playoffs, you have the potential of winners and losers being picked based on what may be politically popular not on actual athletic ability. With the NHL being 4th in terms of popularity compared to the NFL, MLB and NBA such tainted results does have the potential to turn off casual fans which the league has spent years trying to attract. Losses of fans would result in the tax payer having to subsidize the league even further to keep it afloat.
As for not lining the pockets of billionaires, I can understand the sentiment. There are owners not just in the NHL but also in MLB, NFL and NBA who have no desire to make their teams better, only to pocket the profits from their teams fans. Whos to say that problem would be resolved if the government took over ownership duties? Bad ownership and ownership groups are already more difficult to weed out now a days than in the past via fan boycots.
First, it is important to remember exactly who saved the NHL from this last lockout. It wasn't Wayne Gretzky, or Sidney Crosby, or your fearsome Moose King. It was Scot L. Beckenbaugh, a U.S. federal mediator. Scot is an American. He went to American schools, and his salary is paid by American taxpayers. When the NHL needed a hero, it was an American federal government employee who saved the day. Sure we still lost half the season, but it's thanks to Scot, the government that employs him, and the country that raised him, that we are getting any hockey this year at all.
That's what we do, after all. We're Americans. We may be late to the party, but when we show up we kick ass.
The second reason why it should be the U.S., and not Canada, that runs the NHL is the simple fact that the National Hockey league, as a business, is an American enterprise, not a Canadian one. The vast majority of NHL teams are based in the United States, just as the vast majority of team owners are Americans:
There is no economic or logical basis in this argument other than an appeal to nationalist sentiment. Your average fan cares less where an owner, player, coach is from but only if they produce the results that help their team win. However it should be noted that when the Atlanta Thrashers were moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada the team did turn a profit which is unusual for expansion/relocated teams which typically for the first few years operate at a loss.
In the end Mr. Megladon does not make a very compelling case to prove that a government takeover of the NHL would be a positive for the league and their fans. When in fact there is overwhelming evidence that shows that government takeovers of business never turn out the way they hope for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)