no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

An Open Letter to Any Judges Running on a “Rule of Law” Ticket

November 4th, 2012

Remember that you are also an elected official, chosen to advocate on behalf of the people.

As such, you have a responsibility to “legislate from the bench” in ALL circumstances where the legislators have overstepped whatever bounds are placed on them by your constitution, and in ALL circumstances where you believe the legislature has acted contrary to the interests of the people.

Some argue that judges must always enforce laws as written.

Well if that’s the case, and your constitution doesn’t allow you to exercise moral obligations, then please do me a favor and abandon any pretense of righteousness; your constitution is trash. This is a moral responsibility to your fellow man.

If on the other hand your constitution does allow this, and you’re still running on a “rule of law” ticket, I can only assume that you’ve completely abandoned your moral compass in favor of blind deference to the very same legislators to whom you’re supposed to be a constitutional counterbalance.

Go fuck yourselves.

On Moot Points: “47%” and the Romney Campaign

September 20th, 2012

I know Mitt made a foot-in-mouth statement about the “47%”, something that goes like this:

There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement … And they will vote for [Obama] no matter what …

The liberal faction of the mainstream media has a hard-on over this statement like it’s the writing on the wall, the beginning of the end for the Romney campaign. Even though his base – and that 47% is represented largely by southern “Red” states, I don’t think this really matters to them, and consequently to his campaign.

Taxes by state, percent of non-payers

You have to ask yourself do they give a shit? and more importantly do they even know or understand the difference?

Probably not, to both questions. I’d wager most people with zero tax liability still think they’re getting ripped off by The Man (and to an extent they are, but that’s a topic for another discussion). And the vast majority of people — no matter their party affiliation — are dangerously uninformed on matters of economic principles. They would be shocked, as I suspect Romney would also be, to learn that despite the argument that “the rich pay almost all of the taxes” (which is nominally true), that “the rich” are far greater beneficiaries of (corporate) welfare and redistribution than are the working poor.

Also, there’s the pesky fact that the 47% is basically bullshit.

At the end of the day, whether Mitt implodes doesn’t matter. In the charade of “election year politics” and the quadrennial popularity contest that elects the President, it does. But the point is that doesn’t matter. At all. In the grand scheme of things, your corporate masters don’t care whether you pick Obama or Romney as long as you pick Obama or Romney.

There’s No Such Thing as Free Obamacare

September 12th, 2012

A friend of a friend who’s a hardcore Obama supporter through thick & thin and also a stay-at-home mom opines, “I like Obamacare because it means I’ll get free vaccines for my son.”

Oh. You wanted a lesson in life? Here goes:

For starters, no it’s not fucking free. You personally might not have to pay for it but that does not make it “free”. Everything has a cost, and the failure to grasp this concept is failure to grasp the fundamental laws of reality.

Now that we’ve gotten today’s lesson in metaphysics out of the way and we can agree that it’s not “free”, you have some explaining to do. 

You have to explain why someone else has to pay for the things you want, for instance explain why my wife and I (who both work) should be forced to pay to support your choice to not work? You would never dream of holding me as your slave and forcing me to provide for you, yet the policies you favor, and more specifically the political means by which you seek to effect your desired outcomes, are essentially just that.

And don’t give me any crap about the people who “can’t afford it” because:

  1. You’re not in that class and it’s an insult to anyone who is if you’re insinuating that, and 
  2. By and large people can or could afford things but they are prevented or otherwise forcibly deprived means of doing so (cf., Scratching by: How Government Creates Poverty as We Know It, On Breaking Your Legs and Giving You Crutches: A Response To A Liberal) and/or 
  3. They just choose not to because they’ve been conned in to believing, just like you, that these things are “free” and that they are entitled to them without providing for them.

Also, you need to explain why this mentality of yours isn’t exactly the same as the “selfishness” you abhor when a libertarian wants to keep the whole of her own earnings in order to provide for her own family, well-being, needs, etc.

But I’m pretty sure what I’m hearing right now is the sound of deaf ears not listening.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics