Politics, the media, and the judiciary never pause at waging the new endless wars: the war on drugs or against high blood pressure, or the campaigns that assert the endless struggle against fat and obesity. The list of the enemies grows every day, whether racism, xenophobia, or anti-Islamism. The epitome of this movement is political correctness, the war against having one’s own opinion.
Antony Mueller, fee.org
An obvious implication is that political ethics, originally identical with the ethics of war, must long remain akin to them; and can diverge from them only as warlike activities and preparations become less. Current evidence shows this. At present on the Continent, the citizen is free only when his services as a soldier are not demanded; and during the rest of his life he is largely enslaved in supporting the military organization. Even among ourselves a serious war would, by the necessitated conscription, suspend the liberties of large numbers and trench on the liberties of the rest, by taking from them through taxes whatever supplies were needed—that is, forcing them to labour so many days more for the State. Inevitably the established code of conduct in the dealings of Governments with citizens, must be allied to their code of conduct in their dealings with one another.
– Herbert Spencer, “The Sins of Legislators”
This is the single best argument against war I have ever seen.
freedom of expression correlates with better protection of human rights, higher GDP, less violence and lower corruption. Finally, repression of freedom of speech has—in a historical perspective—been the most desired instrument for governments and dictators around the world to retain impoverished people in obedience.
Filip Steffensen, fee.org
If I have a right to freedom of speech, to privacy, or to the ownership of a house, everyone else has an obligation to respect it. But when I claim a “right” to “an income sufficient to live in dignity,” whether I am willing to work for it or not, what I am really claiming is a right to part of somebody else’s earned income. What I am asserting is that he has a duty to earn more than he needs or wants to live on so that the surplus may be seized from him and turned over to me to live on.
Henry Hazlitt, “Income Without Work”
Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as “the fast lane”), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best.
Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea by Harry Khachatrian, dailywire.com
How Can Sweatshops Help The Poor Escape Poverty?
A few observations on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
“Which brings us back to gun control, something countless liberal pundits and Democratic congresspeople are breathlessly demanding right now. How on earth could anyone believe both that Trump is a fascist and that it’s a good idea for a federal government he runs to take guns away from law-abiding citizens? If Trump is a budding Mussolini—let alone something worse—then you shouldn’t want to give him the power required to wage a war on guns. Keep in mind that many gun owners are people of color, who would be (and frequently have been) disproportionately affected by enforcement of new gun laws. Indeed, if Trump wanted to further damage immigrants and communities of color, eroding their rights and jailing their men, he could find no more powerful tool than a license to confiscate guns.” – Robby Soave in If You Think Trump Is a Fascist, You Should Oppose Gun Control
“The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to use threats, intimidation and coercion to confiscate that dollar from another American. Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American. We might ask ourselves: What standard of morality justifies the forcible use of one American to serve the purposes of another American? By the way, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is a fairly good working definition of slavery.”
Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell think they are: https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/07/17/western-values-are-superior
I am inclined to agree.
Young Christopher Machold has trouble understanding the English language (and, perhaps all language) when he accuses the NRA of using language in a “frightening way.” The Frightening Way the NRA Just Co-Opted the Term “Hate Speech”
When the lines of these categories are blurred and our understanding of what constitutes violence is so contorted, it becomes possible to unironically argue that the answer to speech you don’t like is hurting people.
It’s shocking that he makes the same case that the video makes that he is attempting to refute. He, like so many of his generation, confusedly assumes that somehow the video is a call for violence. If the young man understood English, he would see that the video makes the very case against violence that he mistakenly makes against his malformed idea of what the the video communicates.
The fact that young Christopher Machol does not like the NRA does not mean that the NRA constitutes a call to violence. If young Christopher understood language, he might understand that the natural right to be armed (protected by the Second Amendment) is a safeguard against violence.
Watch “Go To Where The Light Is: Escaping North Korea — Yeonmi Park” on YouTube
What she escaped from is Socialism. What she escaped to is Freedom. Socialism is antifreedom. Why any person would desire to inflict Socialism on themselves, their neighbors, their children is something I cannot understand.