November 3rd, 2015
November 4th, 2008
I’ve seen a lot of this meme lately, plastered about the Facebook by the Bernie Sanders Cult.
This is supposed to silence anyone critical of “socialism” by demonstrating some sort of hypocrisy of deed or action: You have a Social Security Card, therefore you’re a Socialist, therefore your criticisms are invalid. QED.
Lel. And fuck off. No, I’m not.
Having a Social Security card (or, having been assigned a Social Security Number) doesn’t make anyone a card-carrying socialist. It simply means you’ve been enrolled (probably at birth, by your parents who either thought they were looking out for you, or were ransomed in to enrolling you to take advantage of the tax breaks that dependent children afford them) in what is ostensibly a social welfare program, which you can’t ever opt out of.
Also because words have meanings: card-carrying generally means that you’re registered with some association (which has subsequently issued cards to their members, as a sort of credentialing system), or as an adjective that means you’re dedicated to a particular cause. You can be a “card-carrying” Democrat if you’ve registered with the Democratic Party, or a “card-carrying” member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers if you’ve been admitted to that Union, or you can be a “card-carrying Environmentalist” in the sense that you’re pretty vocal about your support for all things “green” or whatever.
But simply having a government-issued card for a program you probably didn’t sign up for and can’t opt out of doesn’t make you either of those things. So while you may physically be “carrying” the card in your purse or wallet, that is not what “card-carrying” means.
April 29th, 2008
I voted for “Nobody” for every office: judge, district attorney, supreme court whatchamacallits, treasurer, sheriff, etc. I cast straight-ticket libertarian for university trustees, for whatever that’s worth. Doesn’t the University of Michigan need a libertarian Regent? I don’t know.
I voted in favor of Proposal 1 to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana since it appears to be strictly a cause of decriminalization and does not (on its face) appear to empower any individual, politically. I am well aware that the Feds will continue to knock down the doors of 80-year old cancer co-ops.
I did not weigh in on Proposal 2 (a measure pertaining to stem cell research). I am not against stem cell research, but I am against taxpayer subsidies for anything, and it looks like Proposal 2 mandates taxpayer subsidies. Seriously. What’s wrong with just not making things illegal? I’m not sure why things so often appear to come down to the “subsidize” vs. “criminalize” debate.
There is one exception to what is otherwise pretty much a null ballot. If there is a “Homer Simpson” in Oakland County, he will be pleasantly surprised to learn he received at least one vote for the position of County Drain Commissioner.
It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding people that the state is nothing but an agency of violence. When someone talks about “the welfare state helping the poor,” we must point out the gun in the room. When someone opposes the decriminalization of marijuana, we must point out the gun in the room. When someone supports the reduction of taxes, we must point out the gun in the room – even if one bullet has been taken out.
So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history of the Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing out the gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts awake and drops it in horror and loathing.
And, my favorite,
The issue is not whether [a particular government program is] good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.
Via Freedomain, passed on by To Herd or Not to Herd.