1. image: Download

    laliberty:

Fill in the blank.
There is no wrong answer.

    laliberty:

    Fill in the blank.

    There is no wrong answer.

     
  2. Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?
    — Walter E. Williams (via haereticum)
     
  3. shanemorris:

Ricardo, you are one obnoxious fucking prick. I really gotta hand it to you. From your elitist, “My father is an attorney, and he blah blah blah…” - to your fucking bullshit like this. Congratulations on having your life handed to you on a silver fucking platter. It must be easy to look down on the common people. God, what I wouldn’t fucking give to knock your fucking teeth out of your head.
Allow me to extend you a massive “FUCK YOU” from everyone who works in my industry. I mean, who can afford to buy music when you’re rolling around in a brand new Audi S5? Why would you pay for a concert and be surrounded by middle class, “riff raff”, when you can steal?
You’re all about protecting civil rights and liberties, and the right for people to earn an income, right? That’s your fucking shtick, with all your libertarian shit. You must be the biggest fucking hypocrite… ever? This is how I eat, motherfucker. The engineers, the p.r. people, the managers, the artists, even the janitors who clean the fucking buildings we work in: WE ALL GET FUCKED WHEN YOU STEAL.
And you, of all motherfuckers, can afford to pay for concert tickets, and albums. This for me, defines exactly who the fuck I always thought you were, but goddamn if I wasn’t fucking right. You complain to no end about the excesses of “corporatism”, and yet look at you. FUCKING look at you. You embody the same, “I’m fucking rich, so let me piss on everyone else” mentality that fucks everyone over.
You know what man, I’m gonna fucking do you a solid, since you’re gonna be an attorney and all: Next chance I get, I’ll hand EMI’s copyright lawyers your IP address. (Tagged it off Facebook before I unfriended you just now.)
And to everyone else: Fuck you for stealing, and thinking it’s cool to steal. It’s not cool to steal. I don’t fucking come to your house and take food out of your fucking pantry. I don’t walk into your office and jack your petty cash envelope. So don’t fucking steal from me.
The people you steal from work really fucking hard so you can have music to listen to, because it doesn’t just fucking happen. It costs us $500 per track to get everything mastered at Universal. Engineers cost $40 an hour, and most of our albums are going to take at least 500 hours of studio time - so yeah, that means I gotta write the enginner a check for $20,000, because he’s got bills. Oh yeah, and then I have to pay marketing and advertising people to tell you music is happening. Then there are the tour costs. Want to rent a tour bus? That’ll be $700 per day. Just a van? Alright, $200 per day, but you’ll still need to rent trailer for another $39 per day. Hotels, guitar techs, sound and lighting people, that all costs money.
If you keep stealing from us, I can guarantee you there won’t be any professional music for you to enjoy. This is a business, and we work hard to give you a quality product: And you fucking think it’s awesome to fucking take from us. That’s fucking bullshit.

"And to everyone else: Fuck you for stealing, and thinking it’s cool to steal. It’s not cool to steal. I don’t fucking come to your house and take food out of your fucking pantry. I don’t walk into your office and jack your petty cash envelope. So don’t fucking steal from me."
haha oh my god why do people keep comparing making a copy of a non-scarce thing like a digital file to taking a scarce thing like food or cash? 
So I spend a few hours writing an arrangement of a song for my students, put it up on my webpage, they download it & I’ll still have the file in my possession. This isn’t theft at all, this is magical Jesus shit; taking a single fish & making a trillion copies of it except using books, music, lectures, etc…  
btw, I’m a musician. I get my money in music from teaching & public performance. 

    shanemorris:

    Ricardo, you are one obnoxious fucking prick. I really gotta hand it to you. From your elitist, “My father is an attorney, and he blah blah blah…” - to your fucking bullshit like this. Congratulations on having your life handed to you on a silver fucking platter. It must be easy to look down on the common people. God, what I wouldn’t fucking give to knock your fucking teeth out of your head.

    Allow me to extend you a massive “FUCK YOU” from everyone who works in my industry. I mean, who can afford to buy music when you’re rolling around in a brand new Audi S5? Why would you pay for a concert and be surrounded by middle class, “riff raff”, when you can steal?

    You’re all about protecting civil rights and liberties, and the right for people to earn an income, right? That’s your fucking shtick, with all your libertarian shit. You must be the biggest fucking hypocrite… ever? This is how I eat, motherfucker. The engineers, the p.r. people, the managers, the artists, even the janitors who clean the fucking buildings we work in: WE ALL GET FUCKED WHEN YOU STEAL.

    And you, of all motherfuckers, can afford to pay for concert tickets, and albums. This for me, defines exactly who the fuck I always thought you were, but goddamn if I wasn’t fucking right. You complain to no end about the excesses of “corporatism”, and yet look at you. FUCKING look at you. You embody the same, “I’m fucking rich, so let me piss on everyone else” mentality that fucks everyone over.

    You know what man, I’m gonna fucking do you a solid, since you’re gonna be an attorney and all: Next chance I get, I’ll hand EMI’s copyright lawyers your IP address. (Tagged it off Facebook before I unfriended you just now.)

    And to everyone else: Fuck you for stealing, and thinking it’s cool to steal. It’s not cool to steal. I don’t fucking come to your house and take food out of your fucking pantry. I don’t walk into your office and jack your petty cash envelope. So don’t fucking steal from me.

    The people you steal from work really fucking hard so you can have music to listen to, because it doesn’t just fucking happen. It costs us $500 per track to get everything mastered at Universal. Engineers cost $40 an hour, and most of our albums are going to take at least 500 hours of studio time - so yeah, that means I gotta write the enginner a check for $20,000, because he’s got bills. Oh yeah, and then I have to pay marketing and advertising people to tell you music is happening. Then there are the tour costs. Want to rent a tour bus? That’ll be $700 per day. Just a van? Alright, $200 per day, but you’ll still need to rent trailer for another $39 per day. Hotels, guitar techs, sound and lighting people, that all costs money.

    If you keep stealing from us, I can guarantee you there won’t be any professional music for you to enjoy. This is a business, and we work hard to give you a quality product: And you fucking think it’s awesome to fucking take from us. That’s fucking bullshit.

    "And to everyone else: Fuck you for stealing, and thinking it’s cool to steal. It’s not cool to steal. I don’t fucking come to your house and take food out of your fucking pantry. I don’t walk into your office and jack your petty cash envelope. So don’t fucking steal from me."

    haha oh my god why do people keep comparing making a copy of a non-scarce thing like a digital file to taking a scarce thing like food or cash? 

    So I spend a few hours writing an arrangement of a song for my students, put it up on my webpage, they download it & I’ll still have the file in my possession. This isn’t theft at all, this is magical Jesus shit; taking a single fish & making a trillion copies of it except using books, music, lectures, etc…  

    btw, I’m a musician. I get my money in music from teaching & public performance. 

     
  4. The Lomasky review is an interesting example of what is getting to be a fairly common phenomenon: Hoppephobia. Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.

    In the good old days, this was a common style in philosophy, employed by Kantians, Thomists, Misesians, and Randians alike. In the modern age, however, this method of thought and writing has gone severely out of fashion in philosophy, where truth is almost never arrived at – and certainly never argued for in a deductive fashion. The modern mode is utilitarian, positivist, tangential, puzzle-oriented, and pseudo-empiricist. As a result, modern positivist types have gone flabby and complacent, and reading hard-core deductivists – to say nothing of hard-core libertarians! – hits these people with the force of a blow to the gut.

    Well, shape up, guys! In argument as in politics, those who can’t stand deductivist heat should get out of the philosophic or economic kitchen.

    — Murray Rothbard, Hoppephobia (via conza)
     
  5. hipsterlibertarian:

    His name was Manouchehr Esmaili-Liousi, and he died in a hospital which could not procure the drugs he needed to treat his blood disorder because “haemophilia medicines available in Iranian markets [have] been reduced to a third of former supply levels” by sanctions.

    Jacob Hornberger comments:

    What happens if the parents of Manoucherhr Esmaili-Liousi or other people commit a terrorist attack on the United States in retaliation for the killing of the boy? We all know what will happen. U.S. officials will immediately proclaim, “We’ve been attacked! We’ve been attacked! We’re innocent! We love democracy! This is another day that will live in infamy! The terrorists just hate us for our freedom and values! Alas, we must now invade and and occupy more countries. And unfortunately we must now continue the indefinite suspension of the civil liberties of the American people, to keep them safe and to protect national security.”

     
  6. Incidentally, the same logic that would force one to accept the idea of the production of security by private business as economically the best solution to the problem of consumer satisfaction also forces one, so far as moral-ideological positions are concerned, to abandon the political theory of classical liberalism and take the small but nevertheless decisive step (from there) to the theory of libertarianism, or private property anarchism. Classical liberalism, with Ludwig von Mises as its foremost representative in the twentieth century, advocates a social system based on the nonaggression principle. And this is also what libertarianism advocates. But classical liberalism then wants to have this principle enforced by a monopolistic agency (the government, the state)—an organization, that is, which is not exclusively dependent on voluntary, contractual support by the consumers of its respective services, but instead has the right to unilaterally determine its own income, i.e., the taxes to be imposed on consumers in order to do its job in the area of security production. Now, however plausible this might sound, it should be clear that it is inconsistent. Either the principle of nonaggression is valid, in which case the state as a privileged monopolist is immoral, or business built on and around aggression—the use of force and of noncontractual means of acquiring resources—is valid, in which case one must toss out the first theory. It is impossible to sustain both contentions and not to be inconsistent unless, of course, one could provide a principle that is more fundamental than both the nonaggression principle and the states’ right to aggressive violence and from which both, with the respective limitations regarding the domains in which they are valid, can be logically derived. However, liberalism never provided any such principle, nor will it ever be able to do so, since, to argue in favor of anything presupposes one’s right to be free of aggression. Given the fact then that the principle of nonaggression cannot be argumentatively contested as morally valid without implicitly acknowledging its validity, by force of logic one is committed to abandoning liberalism and accepting instead its more radical child: libertarianism, the philosophy of pure capitalism, which demands that the production of security be undertaken by private business too.
    — 

    A friggin footnote in Economics and Ethics of Private Property by Hans Hermann Hoppe. 

    This is what the internet famous 6 month leap from libertarian (classical liberal) to anarchist (private property anarchist) is really all about. 

     
  7. conza:

    hateforthestate:

    Team Brittany 2nd Presidential Post Debate commentary is up! This is our personal favorite. Lots to comment on this time.

    The only way to review any kind of political debate; with pure Menckenian joy at the spectacle of folly on display. Meet Team Brittany, three hardcore Austro-Libertarians breaking down the latest statist disgrace.

     
  8. The era of resisting big government is never over.
    — Paul Gigot (1998)

    (Source: yalucsd)

     
  9. Just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists – while the rest are innocent civilians, a new report claimed today. The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorised by the operations ’24 hours-a-day’.

    And the authors lay much of the blame on the use of the ‘double-tap’ strike where a drone fires one missile – and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble. One aid agency said they had a six-hour delay before going to the scene. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that people often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.
    — 

    Leon Watson, “America’s deadly double tap drone attacks are ‘killing 49 people for every known terrorist in Pakistan’”

    This is literally a tactic where our military bombs people, probably doesn’t kill any actual terrorists, waits until the rescue workers show up and pull people to safety (i.e. visibility), and then bombs them all again.

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” — H. L. Mencken

    (via hipsterlibertarian)

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” — H. L. Mencken

     
  10. 07:02 2nd Oct 2012

    Notes: 60

    Reblogged from laliberty

    Tags: libertariananarchocapitalism

    “What if a poor person gets sick, doesn’t have insurance, and can’t get friends, family, or charity to pay for treatment?”

    “What if an elderly person gets defrauded out of his entire retirement and the perpetrator vanishes into thin air?”

    “What if a child is starving on the street, and no one voluntarily feeds him?”

    “What if someone just can’t find a job?”

    If you’re a libertarian, you face what-ifs like this all the time. The point, normally, is to make you say, “Tough luck” and look like a monster. What puzzles me, though, is why libertarians rarely ask analogous questions. Like:

    “What if Congress passes an unjust law, the President signs it, and the Supreme Court upholds it?”

    “What if the government conscripts you to fight in an unjust war, and you die a horrible death?”

    “What if a poor person drinks and gambles away his welfare check?”

    “What if the government denies you permission to legally work?”

    “What if the President decides your ethnicity is a national security risk and puts you in a concentration camp, and the Supreme Court declares his action constitutional?”

    “What if a person lives an extremely unhealthy lifestyle, so by the time they’re retired, they’re in constant pain no matter how generous their Medicare coverage is?”

    “What happens if a President lies to start a war, and voters don’t particularly care?”