Anonymous asked: do you believe in basic human rights?

thinksquad:

The biggest trick the Government pulled was convincing people that it had the ability to legislate away constitutional rights. Congress cannot take them, the Supreme Court cannot take them, the President cannot take them. Through common reason it is evident that these rights belong to all human beings, and we have had it with their scheming, lies, and treasonous plots. 

wait - all you people reblogging this… this is a good answer to you?

First he pulls the constitution out of his ass even though that wasn’t part of the question and then he confuses constitutional rights with human rights, which immediately invalidates the idea that that governments can’t take them away - since constitutions ARE government decree. Also, the constitution could be amended to have a “right” to health care or air conditioning or filet mignon - would that mean that those are “basic human rights” that no congress or supreme court or president can take away? What if we live in a place without a supreme court or congress or president? What if we change to a prime minister and parliament? Would they be allowed then?

Obviously, he means “yes, people have rights that governments can’t take away” but what a convoluted way to say so and pretend to sound smart while doing it.

Also, he doesn’t actually explain what these rights are except the ones in the constitution - so we have no more rights than those? And what about all the terrible ways they are interpreted? What’s the right interpretation? He doesn’t tell us, he just refers to “common reason” and that “these rights” (which rights??????) belong to humans… and then, what? “we have had it with their scheming, lies, and treasonous plots” huh? Who is us? the “their” technically refers to “all human beings” from earlier in the sentence, so we (who?) have had it with “all human beings.” But whoever “we” is is among those “all human beings.” He’s obviously referring to politicians (or, again technically, just Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President). But how have we had enough? Because… why? What happened to make you say that we have had enough when you don’t tell us who “we” refers to and how this “we” has decided they have hd enough? and how does that follow from everything else in the post?

This is a terrible answer. 

73 notes

Floods, Snow, and Opportunity Cost

(Source: laliberty)

7 notes

Cop Tries to Shoot Dog, Shoots Himself Instead

laliberty:

Someone should hire this guy to teach marksmanship to police departments across the country… there’d be a lot fewer dead dogs and homeless people, for starters.

255 notes

chrisray:

priceofliberty:

beefycurtains:

seattl-ite:

katara:

I am sick of people thinking deodorant is optional

i’m sick of people thinking that they can judge others on a normal bodily function and that the only way they can be accepted is to wear something that is harmful/poisonous to your body. just because some men in the 1880’s decided bodily odor was no longer acceptable. 

image

probably the same men in the 1880s who had to work in manufacturing, or other closer-quarter areas and were sick of smelling each others’ rank-ass bodies at the end of every work shift.

Come on now.  When someone works on a fishing boat, they are actually adopting the smell that is natural to the human condition.  Salt, brown water butt sweat, taint cheese, and fish offal. Your bourgeois concept of smelling good is holding back humanity, clearly. 

"Salt, brown water butt sweat, taint cheese, and fish offal." is actually what Marx smelled like. True story, look it up.

221,036 notes

"You can’t just start the clock on 9/11 and forget 50 years of unjust oppressive Western foreign policies in the Middle East."

Mehdi Hasan

Thank God someone finally said this. I’m so sick of stating that Western intervention and invasion of other countries fuels terrorism only for people to respond 'They did 9/11 first!'  In 1953 the UK & the US staged a coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed a dictator who was more to their liking. Today the U.S. continues to support brutal dictators (such as in Saudi Arabia) where it suits them to do so. Palestine has been occupied for decades. The list of Western imperial foreign policies over the past decades could go on and on. 9/11 was not only only a result religious extremism and it certainly was NOT because 'they hate our freedoms.' Terrorism is often primarily politically motivated and anyone who is serious about preventing it had better take some fucking notice of this fact. (via insideonemind)

(via endtheterrorwar)

"Thank God someone finally said this."

Whose ass has your head been hiding in all these years? Plenty of people have “said this,” probably most famously this old dude who ran for president a couple of times. Not enough people say this, yeah. But you did not have to wait for someone to “finally” say it.

(via bitchbetterhavemyhunny)

4,251 notes

Private Property the Only Real Solution on Immigration

Libertarians should stop trying to figure out what the “correct” position on immigration is, in the context of a State monopolizing what happens at the border. There isno good solution if this is the framework. For yet more analogies, think about health care or the production of food. In a free society, any doctor would have the right to refuse to treat anybody he or she wanted; no big deal. But if the State monopolizes the provision of health care, and then decides not to give treatment to people criticizing the government, that’s a monstrous miscarriage of justice.

The same is true with respect to the rules according to which people are allowed to cross a border. There is no problem in allowing individual land owners to make these decisions based on whatever criteria they want. But if you suddenly amass all of this decision-making authority into the hands of a few political rulers, the threat to liberty takes a quantum leap. …

No individual has the power to actually form current government policy. It is not a “cop out” for me to say that the best thing would be to privatize land, get rid of the welfare state and government schools, etc. etc., in which case “unrestricted immigration” by the federal government would be A-OK. Regardless of what I say on immigration policy, the government is going to do whatever it’s going to do. Once we realize that the purpose of our pontificating is to say what the ideal outcome would be, we can stop tying ourselves in knots by talking about “politically possible” options.

(Source: laliberty)

7 notes

Climate Change Policies as a Form of Insurance

Suppose someone from an insurance company came to you in the year 2050 and said, “We’ve run computer models many thousands of times using all kinds of different assumptions. In the worst-case scenario, a very small fraction of the computer runs—about 1 in 500—has you losing 20% of your income in the year 2100. In order to insure you against this extremely unlikely outcome that will occur in half a century, we want to charge you 3.4% of your income this year.”

Would you want to take that deal? Of course not. The premium is way too high in light of the very low probability and the relative modesty of the “catastrophe.” When someone’s house burns down, that’s a much bigger hit than 20% of annual income. And yet, the premiums for fire insurance are quite reasonable; they’re nowhere near 3.4% of income for most households. Moreover, the threat of your house burning down is immediate: It could happen tomorrow, not just fifty years from now. That’s why people have no problem buying fire insurance for their homes. Yet the situation and numbers aren’t anywhere close to analogous when it comes to climate change policies.

Recognizing that they can no longer make their case on the basis of down-the-middle projections, those favoring massive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change have resorted to focusing on very unlikely but devastating scenarios. In this context, they have likened their preferred government policies as a form of insurance.

However, this analogy fails for several reasons. First, insurance in the marketplace is voluntary; when the government forces people to buy it—as with ObamaCare—then there is indeed a public outcry. Second, actual insurance in the marketplace is based on extensive actuarial data; we have no such understanding with climate change, but instead the outcomes against which we are “insuring” live inside computer projections.

Finally, even taking the insurance analogy head-on, the numbers don’t work. Nobody would take out an insurance policy on the terms of likely payouts and expense of premium that climate change policy offers.

(Source: laliberty)

8 notes

idontmakemonkeys:

haereticum:

satans-advocate:

besturlonhere:

lightand-shadow:

assdownloader:

oops

How dare you.

You might not approve of some of the military decisions made by anybody, but that does not mean we should not support the people who sacrifice their lives for us on a daily basis.

I will always support the troops.

congratulations you are very wrong! the united states military (the navy especially) is the lynchpin for american/western european imperialism throughout the world and as such it the troops do not “sacrifice” for you or me but rather kill to further western domination and extraction of raw materials and because of this it is encouraged to poke fun at them via snapchats

lmfao ‘how dare u’

HOW DAR U I CREY EVERTEIM

Lol. How dare
us. How dare we bring attention to murder and imperialism.

I will always support exploit the troops.

fuck the troops.

bravo everybody on here

(Source: squartsqvad, via bitchbetterhavemyhunny)

2,058 notes

contraception:

the goal is to love myself so much it offends other people

so you plan to masturbate in public?

(via danialnotdenial)

80,911 notes

supersmashthestatebros:

anarcho-capitalism. anarcho-communism.

ancap. ancom. cap. com. capcom.

image

Mega Man, the symbol of anarchist synthesis.

(via theanarchocapitalist)

145 notes