Saturday, August 30, 2014

ANOTHER FAUX LIBERTARIAN SAYS, "IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, BECOME A PROGRESSIVE"




Today, Mish from Global Economic Trend Analysis answers a reader who asked as a libertarian, should he take welfare food stamps (SNAP) provided by the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency of the U.S. Congress. The reader describes himself as a trust-fund baby who has the income to pay, but because of law loopholes, he qualifies for both food stamps and Medicaid.



To answer the dilemma-ridden libertarian, Mish turned to his often-mentioned friend, Pater Tenebrarum. Tenebrarum said that if the government has taken your taxes, you have every right to receive some restitution and that if you believe you have been robbed, then signing up and taking welfare is clawing back some of what has been looted from you. Tenebrarum claims this to be the "correct libertarian viewpoint."

Pater Tenebrarum doesn't seem to understand jurisprudence and thus libertarianism.

Taxes are an unearned share of profits levied by politicians. Where there is no profit, there can be no taxes. Unlike investors who gain return because they have traded property in cash and credit in the past for cash and credit now, politicians have not invested in anyone or in any firm. Through law, politicians have dispensed with the need to invest in hopes of a gain.

Long ago, the founders of the current USA, through the second constitution gave themselves the right and imposed the duty on anyone to pay taxes. In theory, Americans of that time agreed to the second constitution through their contitutional convention representatives.

The constitution has given politicians the right of action to collect sums from anyone who  trades property in pursuit of profit. Everyone who trades property in pursuit of profit has liability for taxation. The constitution has given politicians the right to decree the manner of reckoning levy and has imposed the duty of anyone to accept that reckoning.


Always, in jurisprudence, property means right of ownership and not what is owned. This must be kept in your mind.

Politicians gain property in the cash and bank credits acquired from taxation. It is from this property that politicians now have funds.

Through law, give property in their funds to some based upon rules politicians set. Likewise, politicians impose duty upon to give up their property in their funds. Such property, which is the right of ownership, includes all kinds of welfare programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8, Pell, TANF, SNAP, and countless others like subsidized loans to veterans and so on.

Libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. In short, libertarianism means living by fewer laws and thus fewer rights and duties. Adding ever more rights and duties is how you lessen freedom and expand political control over everyone through legal means.

If Mish's reader accepts welfare, he agrees to the system of less liberty, of more rights and duties. Thus, Mish's reader goes against libertarianism.

Mish's reader agrees to have Congress tax all at their reckoning. Mish's reader agrees to men of Congress running perpetual fiscal year deficits that accumulate into massive debt. Mish's reader agrees that Fed Res bankers should buy that debt, putting into circulation more cash and bank credits, which reduces the buying power and thus the living standard of workers.

In short, Mish's reader agrees to liberal progressivism.
Read more ...
Blogger Tricks

Thursday, August 28, 2014

SUTTON WHO? ANGLES, SAXONS, AND JUTES OH MY. WHAT INVASION?

Bizarro Theater has been ongoing for much longer than the days of 20th century radio, TV and Internet media.



Back in 731 or so, a monk named Bede wrote Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (An Ecclesiastical History of the English People) in which he spun a tall tale of propaganda about the failings of Roman Christian Britons to convert Germanic immigrants to Catholicism. It is from Bede that modern era historians developed the myth of an invading horde of Angles, Saxons and Jutes sailing an armada across the English Channel coming to conquer and kill off Celto-Britains around 450 AD. After the invasion, myth tellers claim the locals slowly adopted the language, customs and beliefs of the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

What invasion? Germanic people likely sailed with Romans in 43 AD and partook in the Roman invasion of Briton. As it were, likely most of the Roman troops of the 43 AD invasion came from Germanic imperial provinces.

Likelier still, Germanic Peregrini from Germania Inferior and Gallia Belgica populated Roman-Britain over the long span between 43 AD and 410 AD along with Roman citizen administrators and soldiers. Likely, these Germanic Peregrini outnumbered Romans emigrating to Britain by big factor. Also likely, Germanic Peregrini were given enfranchisement maybe even by en bloc and likely had higher status than those of wealh pre-Gaulish origin Britons. As it is, all Germanic Peregrini were made citizen in 210 AD.

These Germanic Peregrini provided the backbone of Roman-standards work in Britain precisely because they had been doing so already in the imperial provinces on the mainland. These Germanic Peregrini likely were skilled craftsman and skilled farmers who were looking to move up to "new world" opportunities.

Perhaps those of the Ubii and Tongres comprised the first Germanic Peregrini who sailed with Roman citizens and soldiers from Lugdunum Batavorum (Katwijk) and Bononia (Boulogne). No doubt Germanic Peregrini of other clans and tribes traveled to the new world to advance themselves. Their population grew with their Britain-living descendants.

Since most administrators and soldiers of the 43 AD invasion came from Germanic imperial provinces, quite likely most of the administrators and higher-ranking soldiers were bi-lingual in government Latin and the prevailing Germanic tongue of their region. This is likely so because most likely were Germanic and not Romans from Rome.

The archaeological record fails to show a mass invasion and wipe out of Britons. It seems so unlikely that 5th century Germanic tribes from Germania Magna had the financial means much less the technological and organizational means to build a flotilla of ships in a World War 2 style mass invasion of Britain. That isn't to say enterprising Germanic mafioso from that region didn't show up in the power vacuum created by departing Roman administrators and soldier-police. According to those at 3D history, an Anglo-Saxon boat could carry around 40. That means an invasion of 100,000 would have needed a whopping 2,500 boats!


The Romans had the sophistication and means. The Romans carried on extensive trade from their provinces. The Romans would have been sailing ships likely on schedule from Lugdunum Batavorum (Katwijk) and Bononia (Boulogne), ships which would have transported new world opportunity seekers. The Romans had transport highways from these ports leading all the way back to Rome.

The linguistic record shows so few words of Celto-Britons in English. Yet more than a few Romano-Latin words in English supports Celto-Brits being sequestered from Romans and Germanic Peregrini.

So likely, the Old English period did not begin around 450 AD as far too many have supposed for far too long. Rather, Old English in Britain likely began 43 AD because people were already speaking a Germanic tongue, which became the basis of misnamed "Anglo-Saxon" by linguists.

That Celto-Britons get labeled as foreigners (wealh) reveals exclusion. The DNA record supports connection between contemporary Englishmen and contemporary North Sea Germanics of Belgium, Netherlands and northern Germany.

What happened in Britain from 43 AD might have looked quite a bit like what happened in Colonial America. Englishmen and Ulster Scots, the Romans and Germanics of later times, who pushed out into the hinterlands the native North American "indians", the Celto-Britons of their time. The population of hunter-gatherers would remain small relative to the growing population of sophisticated farmer-traders.

Likely, the next big-scale invasion didn't come to the shores of Britain until 865 AD.

Recently, I came across this BBC doc from a few years ago hosted by Francis Pryor and based on his work Britain A.D. Pryor and I agree on the imaginary Angle, Saxon, Jute invasion. However, it should seem obvious to all that Germanics invaded in 43 A.D. and continued to migrate to Roman Britain for centuries.

Likely, these earlier migrants and their descendants spoke a Germanic tongue that gave rise to the English of the Old English era.





I'd bet the only Saxons to invade Britain were these guys who formed Barnsley, South Yorkshire back in 1976.


Read more ...

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

HAVE IT YOUR WAY. HOLD THE POLITICAL B.S. LETTUCE, OBAMA AND CONGRESS. BRAZILIAN-OWNED BURGER DECIDES TO RELO IT'S CORPORATE REGISTRY TO CANADA

Back on August 24, 2014, my best Canadian friend alerted me to the Burger King acquisition news of Tim Horton's as published by the Wall Street Journal. Though I scanned the story, I didn't think much of it.

Back in 1995, Tim Horton's had entered into a merger of sorts with Dave Thomas' Wendy's based in Ohio. Horton's largest shareholder, Ron Joyce, became the largest shareholder of the merged firms. By 2006, the controlling interest of the Wendy's shares spun out their Tim Horton shares in an IPO.




Burger King isn't an "American company." It's owned mostly by Brazilians, 3G Capital of Brazil, which acquired a majority stake in BK back in 2010.

It's true that Chairman Alexandre Behring works out of a New York City office, but it is laughable to call Burger King an American company, even if the BK HQ sits in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Brazillian-owned Burger King exports to the USA when they sell burgers at any of the restaurants situated in the USA. Their investments in exports to the USA provides jobs, buys USA-sourced products and more.

Why should you care if Brazilian-majority owned Burger King relos it's US HQ from Miami-Dade, Florida, to Oakville, Ontario? BK is the largest fast-food chain in both Mexico and Spain. Should the Mexicans or Spaniards cry that BK could become a Canadian domiciled firm?

Why should Brazilian-owned BK pay taxes to the U.S. Congress on income earned in Mexico and Spain, two countries where BK leads in fast food sales?

In an increasingly globalized world, one which the U.S. Political establishment established through Nixon going to China and expanded through the World Trade Organization, the U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the expanded NAFTA, and numerous other FTAs, this is what happens.

The U.S. Congress needs to awaken to a globalized commercial reality. The craziness of taxing Americans who earn income in foreign lands while living there needs to flat out stop. It's time to stop taxing anyone who earns income in foreign lands while domiciled there.

And for those living in the good ol' USA, no one should be required to pay more than 10% of his or her income to all government levels combined — The U.S. Congress, a state legislature, a county, a municipality.

And since the USSC recognized corporations as persons, way back in 1885, no corp should be required to pay more than 10% of its income in taxes.

In the U.S.A., politicians make all the rules that define all the markets. Many would like to blame the CEOs of corporate entities that adjust to the realities of a globalized commercial world as greedy. Those who do, point fingers at the wrong people.

THE GREEDY ARE THE ONLY PROBLEM THE WHOLE EARTH OVER.

Bloomberg has it wrong. It's not the IRS that sets the tax policy, it's the greedy U.S. Congress. If Obama were any kind of a leader, he would call on Congress to change its tax policy and call for smaller government needing less tax collection.


Read more ...

Sunday, August 24, 2014

OBSESSED WITH ALL THINGS ME, THE LOSERS AT REASON.COM WHINE OVER ME OWNING REAL ESTATE IN THEIR MINDS

Check out screenshots of the goofy exchange among the silly libertine progressives at Reason.com obsessing over all things me.

Here we see "Gilmore" trying to scratch a few brain cells together to sleuth.




Here you see other Reason.com geniuses lamenting my censorship by their cult handlers at Reason.com, not because they don't want me stifled, but because now, I own pieces of their minds. At least one mistakes me for "Mary" whoever she is.



Here, the clever-by-half Francisco believes he has me sussed merely because I mentioned marionettes. Meanwhile, I've been using the words as strings, dance marionette troll defense long before most of these Reason comment geniuses could even use a keyboard.


Gilmore pipes up to say that libertarianism is meaningless, effectively suggesting that its OK to claim to be libertarian if that is helpful to push one's liberal progressive agenda of legalized gay marriage, legalized pot smoking, legalized illegal aliens.


Alas, to the Gilmores of this world, concepts, definition and meaning are irrelevant as long as he can kick back in his mommy's basement and smoke bong hits all day without fear of being arrested while spewing blather-fueled comments on Reason.com. Now, if only prostitution were legalized so he could no longer fear getting arrested.

The psychology of group dynamics always amuses. To keep group cohesion and to gain status among peers, it is far too easy to attack the outsider who brings forth an alternative. Rather than struggle to refute truth, going for ad hominem against the outsider is far easier.

The regular commenters at Reason.com, the true definition of trolls living under the proverbial bridge of pseudo-libertarianism that is Reason.com, hope to gain status among their peers of toadies by attacking an outsider, in this case me. The cheap attacks come easy as these Reasonvoids hide behind LCD screens, flexing keyboard muscles. In real life though, likely these mice scurry away from adults fearing interaction.

Cult dynamics are fun to observe. The handlers at Reason.com are masters at it. They continue to forge group cohesion by spinning the same reinforcement stories — (1) arrested parents over free-range kids, (2) horrible abuse by cops during arrests, (3) free association commercial discrimination of homosexuals by religious zealots, (4) the plight of law-breaking illegal aliens.

Editors of Reason.com pick and choose articles for publication to push the agenda of the major contributors, not unlike lobbyists who push their agenda with legislators.  The cult handlers of Reason.com preach a  progressive, liberal social agenda to gain support for a big business agenda. It should be clear to all that pushing for legalization for gay marriage, for pot smoking, for illegals, is the opposite of libertarianism.

The editors at Reason.com aggressively court those of the so-called Millennial Generation. They are fond boosting stories that appeal to young men already softened by progressive, liberal public education — legalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, legalizing illegal aliens. The editorial board consistently panders to pot-smoking 20-dumbthings who prove to be easy pickings as their liberal public education masters have already soften them to the ideas of gay marriage and illegal aliens become legalized immigrants.

When those indoctrinated are in the throes of indoctrination, when having been told truth about existence, something in their minds catch a glimpse of this truth. Yet, through the forces of cognitive dissonance, they fight truth, going all out to defend the wall of their false beliefs precisely because the truth conflicts with their indoctrination.

Still, for those interested in authentic libertarian thought, you can find quality on the Internet, including right here at Bizarro Theater.

In the end, it's fun knowing I own pieces of real estate in all of their minds, however suffering they are from mind disorder owing to the pernicious effects of hyper indoctrination.

At least the geniuses at Reason.com are hot-linking to my blog, unwittingly sending me traffic.



Read more ...

DO REASON.COM "LIBERTARIAN" EDITORS SUPPORT RAPE AND MOLESTATION OF TEENS AND YOUNGER-THAN-TEENS?

Living is serious. Perhaps many should awaken to reality.

On August 22, 2014, Reason.com published a piece by Jacob Sullum in which Sullum laments that legislators of the State of New York have  imposed residence restrictions against those convicted of heinous sex crimes, which Sullum believes are "so onerous that sex offenders due to be released from prison cannot find legal places to live."





The egregious crimes of child molestation and rape deform anyone for a lifetime, creating perpetual victims of those who suffer such reprehensible crimes. Even though USSC robe Anthony Kennedy says otherwise, sex crimes have life-long effects that victims suffer. Unlike those raped, those murdered escape suffering.

If only those creepy pervs hadn't molested children, likely the most heinous crime known to man, well, maybe the creepy pervs wouldn't have it so tough. As it is, there are many Americans who would prefer sex crime convicts remain in prison for life or merely get executed. Sometimes, bad people need to live with the consequences of being bad people.


Sullum laments,

Under New York's Sexual Assault Reform Act, which took effect in 2005, level-three sex offenders and all sex offenders whose victims were younger than 18 are prohibited from going within 1,000 feet of a school or any other facility that mainly serves children...That means sex offenders not only are not allowed to live in Manhattan; they are not even allowed to visit or pass through it, unless they can somehow do so without running afoul of the 1,000-foot rule.
According to New York law, a Level 3 convicted sex criminal gets deemed a high-risk of repeat offense and thus a threat. Level 3 convicts of sex crimes have been deemed the seriously wicked, mentally twisted. Thus, New York legislators have decreed through law and agency such heinous persons have the duty to maintain lifetime registry and that legislators and their agents have the right to know where Level 3 sex offenders live.

Facts remain. Legislators of the State of New York have deemed capacity to decide having sex at 17 and have deemed no one has authority to decide sexual matters for anyone. That is why parents can't peddle out their daughters for sex in pursuit of accrued favors or cash.

The age of consent in New York is 17. Anyone 18 or older becomes a rapist upon conviction in New York for having sex with someone lacking capacity to consent.

If someone is 16 or 17, and has sex with anyone lacking capacity, that is anyone under 17, that one is liable for sexual misconduct, a misdemeanor.

Having reached the age of majority in New York, 18, anyone becomes liable for various degrees of rape, all felonies:

  • 3rd degree rape if rapist is 21 or older and the victim is 16 or 15
  • 2nd degree rape if rapist is 18 or older and the victim is 14 or 13
  • 1st degree rape if rapist is 18 or older and the victim is 12 or younger
  • 1st degree rape if rapist is 16 or older and the victim is 10 or younger

Laws impose duty and right. New Yorkers have the right not to be raped or molested. Adults have the duty not to molest or rape anyone. Legislators have conferred the right of prosecution against anyone not upholding their duty. Legislators have imposed the duty of liability to their right of prosecution for those suspected of failing to uphold their duty.

Anyone with good sense would see all of these laws as reasonable. Apparently, those at Reason.com do not believe that luring a child, forcible touching of a child, incest with a child, raping a child, or sodomy of a child is all that bad. Perhaps, those at Reason.com see such vile, heinous acts as merely poor decisions made during weaker moments of younger days of adulthood.


Here is the State of New York legislators Sex Offender Registration Act. Here are the "registerable" offenses for the State of New York sex offender registry:



Penal Law Statute
Offense Class Offense Note
120.70 E Felony luring a child 1
130.20 A Misdemeanor sexual misconduct
130.25 E Felony rape in the third degree
130.30 D Felony rape in the second degree
130.35 B Felony rape in the first degree
130.40 E Felony criminal sexual act in the third degree
130.40 E Felony sodomy in the third degree
130.45 D Felony criminal sexual act in the second degree
130.45 D Felony sodomy in the second degree
130.50 B Felony criminal sexual act in the first degree
130.50 B Felony sodomy in the first degree
130.52 A Misdemeanor forcible touching 2
130.53 E Felony persistent sexual abuse
130.55 B Misdemeanor sexual abuse in the third degree 2
130.60 A Misdemeanor sexual abuse in the second degree
130.65 D Felony sexual abuse in the first degree
130.65-a E Felony aggravated sexual abuse in the fourth degree
130.66 D Felony aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree
130.67 C Felony aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree
130.70 B Felony aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree
130.75 B Felony course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree
130.80 D Felony course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree
130.90 D Felony facilitating a sex offense with a controlled substance
130.95 A-II Felony predatory sexual assault
130.96 A-II Felony predatory sexual assault against a child
135.05 A Misdemeanor unlawful imprisonment in the second degree 3
135.10 E Felony unlawful imprisonment in the first degree 3
135.20 B Felony kidnapping in the second degree 3
135.25 A-I Felony kidnapping in the first degree 3
230.04 A Misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute in the third degree 4
230.05 E Felony patronizing a prostitute in the second degree
230.06 D Felony patronizing a prostitute in the first degree
230.30(2) C Felony promoting prostitution in the second degree
230.32 B Felony promoting prostitution in the first degree
230.33 B Felony compelling prostitution
230.34 B Felony sex trafficking
235.22 D Felony disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree
250.45(2),
(3) and (4)
E Felony unlawful surveillance in the second degree 5
250.50 D Felony unlawful surveillance in the first degree
255.25 E Felony Incest (committed prior to 11/1/06)
255.25 E Felony Incest in the third degree
255.26 D Felony Incest in the second degree
255.27 B Felony Incest in the first degree
263.05 C Felony use of a child in a sexual performance
263.10 D Felony promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child
263.11 E Felony possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child
263.15 D Felony promoting a sexual performance by a child
263.16 E Felony possessing a sexual performance by a child
263.30 B Felony

facilitating a sexual performance by a child with a controlled substance or alcohol


  • 1  If the underlying offense is a class A or a class B felony, then the offense of luring a child shall be considered respectively, a class C felony or class D felony.
  • 2A registerable offense only if the victim is less than eighteen years of age or where the defendant has a prior conviction for a sex offense, a sexually violent offense, forcible touching or sexual abuse in the third degree or an attempt thereof even if registration was not required for the prior conviction; regardless of when the prior conviction occurred.
  • 3A registerable offense only if the victim is less than seventeen years old and the offender is not the parent of the victim.
  • 4A registerable offense only if the person patronized is in fact less than seventeen years old.
  • 5A registerable offense unless the trial court finds that registration would be unduly harsh and inappropriate.  The Attempt version of this offense is registerable for those offenders who committed the offense on or after Sept. 23, 2011, or who previously committed the offense but were still under sentence as of that date.
You can read through apologist work by yet another Reasonoid cult handler, Lenore Skenazy , I Saw a Man Get Arrested For a Sex Crime Because He Made a Scheduling ErrorIn the work, Skenazy decries that legislators of Texas require Joshua Gravens to register a sex offender because Gravens fingered his sister's vagina more than once when his victim was merely eight.

Skenazy describes Gravens as a "super-articulate" man, which hardly could be the description of someone whose intellect is so hampered as  not to have known he was wrong to molest his sister when he was 12.

What is next for Reasonoids? Are they going to come out their closets to support NAMBLA under a bogus free association argument?





You can glance at the age of consent laws of the various states, none of which seem unreasonable.





On a side note, 42% of all millionaires living in New York state live in the Manhattan borough of New York City. It looks like Manhattan millionaires have bought the legislators they needed to keep heinous child molesters out of Manhattan.

Here are a few of my takes on the progressive liberals masquerading libertarians at Reason.com:




One last note, because of my comments written in response to Reasonoid cultie handler Shikha Dalmia's recent Reason.com article on Millennials and legal pot, detailing how legalization isn't decriminalization and thus legalization, which Reason.com handlers champion, isn't libertarian, I've been censored at Reason.com

All of my comments on countless articles have been removed by the technical staff at Reason.com while comments remain by scores of others on those same articles.

So much for the "free minds" slogan Reasonoids at Reason.com peddle.

Reasonoids at Reason.com give libertarianism a bad rep. In short, they don't understand the doctrine at all and thus are not adherents to it. The closet from which Reasonoids should emerge is the Rockefeller Republican / (Bill) Clinton New Democrat closet in which they hide while masquerading as libertarians.

I might have more to say about my blacklisted censorship at Reason.com soon.
Read more ...

Saturday, August 23, 2014

WHOA DUDE, WHAT? LEGALIZING ISN'T LIBERTARIAN? PASS ME THE BONG. GOO GOO GOO JOOB.

So today, editors at Reason.com published yet another indoctrination piece by Reasonoid cultie handler Shikha Dalmia, this time about the failings of the political establishment to understand 20-somethings in America, or those wrongly dubbed Millennials as they're were born seven years before the start of the new millennium.

"...they are aspiring entrepreneurs who want worldly success—along with legal pot." ~ Shikha Dalmia



Legal pot isn't what authentic libertarians want. Legal pot expands the size and scope of government, without doubt, an anti-libertarian result.

Libertarians seek fewer laws thus to live by liberty, also said in freedom, or that realm where politicians are content to leave alone anyone.

Legalization requires law. Law imposes duty and right. There can be no right without duty, no duty without right. There can be no law without matching duty and right.

Legalization adds law. Legalization doesn't subtract law.

Pushing for legalization pushes against libertarianism. No one can claim to be libertarian and also advocate for more law. Doing so would be the same as claiming to be on a diet and then doubling one's caloric intake.

Removing the law from the books is the libertarian act. Substituting one law for another is mere tweaking control and leaves power in place.

Take driving and flying. Once there were no laws with respect to driving or flying. Americans were at liberty to drive or fly. Americans had no duty not to drive or fly without license and politicians lacked any right to prosecute through their agency, anyone driving or flying. And then politicians legalized driving and flying.

Legalization isn't decriminalization. Only when laws that impose criminal liability thus giving right of prosecution to the agency of legislators get repealed, do previously deemed criminalized acts become decriminalized.

In 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington passed ballot initiatives legalizing marijuana for adults 21 and older under state law in their respective states. Long ago, Congress decreed that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime.

What happens when someone in Colorado grows seven plants and gets caught by Colorado authorities? What happens when someone gets caught with one dram or even one grain over one ounce if the authorities so desire to measure? What happens if someone trades pot for a power drill and later someone reports this trade to the authorities? What happens when someone grows more than he can smoke over time and he accumulates more than eight ounces and the authorities catch him?

It is illegal to possess more than one ounce of marijuana for recreational use. It is illegal to grow or cultivate seven or more marijuana plants. It is illegal to give away marijuana to other adults aged 21 and over without trading pot for cash or bank credits.

The Colorado legislators decreed that possessing more than eight ounces is a Class 5 felony. Those convicted face between one to three years in prison and fines between $1,000 and $100,000.

If anyone is caught using marijuana in public or having it out in the open, that one can be sentenced to an additional 15 days in jail. If this is their second offense or more, that one could face double the maximum sentence.

As well, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, pot remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Those who use, grow or sell marijuana remain at risk for prosecution. There is no defense against marijuana charges in federal court.

The 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment, which had criminalized the production and sale of beverage alcohol. Until 2013, the residents of Alabama and Mississippi were prohibited from home-brewing beer. Those living in those states had to suffer 80 years of brilliant legalization.



If only we get the laws right this time... — well that is the mantra of every progressive liberal in the history of progressivism and liberalism in the age of scientism.

Libertarianism means living by few laws, hence having few duties to few corresponding rights. Libertarians advocate liberty, not legalization. Libertarians advocate freedom not rules-adherence to officialdom.

Those who advocate for more law are not libertarians. They might be indoctrinated into the false belief they are, but they're not. Every "legalize it" advocate is a liberal progressive and not a libertarian.

That is the problem with the culties at Reason.com. These culties are Rockefeller Republicans / (Bill) Clinton New Democrats.

Owing to the pernicious effects of hyper indoctrination, the culties at Reason.com have been trained  to believe, wrongly, of course, that anyone can become "freer". Anyone is either free or not free. There isn't such thing as degrees of freedom, statistics and mechanics notwithstanding.

Freedom is the virtual realm where no laws exist in the presence of government. Freedom is what speakers of Old French into English called liberty. Where there is law, there isn't freedom. Where there is law, there is duty and right, capacity, authority and power.

Words are the means to meaning. Words label concepts. Concepts are invariant. The culties at Reason.com might  not like these concepts freedom and liberty but never are their misuses of words going to erase those concepts from reality.

Giving anyone permission, license and the like fails to make anyone free. Such instruments give those who grant such control. No one can be free while also being under control.

Nothing shall change as long as many let themselves become indoctrinated to false doctrine as the pseudo-libertarians have at Reason.com. No one shall get free adding new laws.

REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA'S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS


Corporation t-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday. Now let's get our tans standing in the English rain.



Read more ...

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

FEMINISM IS RACISM

Julie Borowski has produced a series of YouTube videos whereby she reveals various indoctrinated, collectivist beliefs contrasted against individualism.

Julie gestures great faces. Enjoy her message!



Read more ...