libertarians:

1. Point out that Ron Paul is pro-life (without mentioning his anti-war stance).

2. Scream that George Bush was a really bad President.

3. Avoid conversations about Obama’s massive debt, pro-war(s) policies, fervent copulation with big business, extension of the Patriot Act, etc.

4:15 pm  •  27 August 2011  •  24 notes

John Stossel’s Affirmative Action bake sale. 

This man is a genius. 

2:41 pm  •  27 August 2011  •  17 notes

(Source: fareastlibertarianmovement)

2:35 pm  •  27 August 2011  •  9 notes

(via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

1:46 pm  •  27 August 2011  •  882 notes

(Source: peaceandblessinss, via scatteredaesthetics)

10:19 am  •  27 August 2011  •  68 notes

thetrichotomousexploration:

A group of Libertarians discuss immigration, abortion, and gay marriage on John Stossel’s show on Fox Business.

I encourage everyone to watch this.  If you want to understand libertarians and their conflicting views on social issues…this can help so much.

Best quote: “The most interesting thing I think about, and I’m not sure libertarians have had anything terribly original to say, except what I find is that libertarians on both sides of this issue respect the other position more than a lot of people in the pro-life and the pro-choice camps because I think we can understand the case for life and the case for liberty.” [7:04-7:23}

(via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

6:52 am  •  27 August 2011  •  14 notes

johnbutlertrain:

John Stossel is the smartest man alive. If anyone is legitimately interested in my REAL political views, then please watch this clip.

(via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

3:26 am  •  27 August 2011

marketorder:

When people ask me why I’m against government programs that “help” the poor, it’s precisely because they do the opposite of their intentions.

(via marketorder-deactivated20120326)

8:39 pm  •  26 August 2011  •  68 notes

uniteordie:

THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED TO PEOPLE LIKE US

(via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

12:14 pm  •  26 August 2011  •  14 notes

(Source: fuckyeahdrugpolicy, via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

8:19 am  •  26 August 2011  •  1,208 notes

laliberty:

There was a time, long ago, when a driver had to actually cause an accident – or at least, do something tangible that gave evidence of actually impaired driving, such as weaving over the double yellow [line] or limping along at suspiciously slow speed. This was the probable cause needed by a cop to pull the suspect over.

Fair enough.

Then in the ’90s we got (courtesy of Clintigula) the criminalization of drinking – irrespective of our actual driving. The mere presence of trace amounts of alcohol in one’s blood became sufficient to arrest a person for “drunk” driving – even though all the person did was run afoul of a notoriously unreliable Breathalyzer machine [sometimes even less than that - the mere statement of a police officer that he smelled alcohol could be enough probable cause to suspend a license].

It did not matter that people process alcohol differently; that some people are much better drivers even with a little booze in their systems than others are completely sober. And more besides.

Result?

Most people now equate having “x” amount of alcohol in your system – in ever-declining percentages – with “drunk driving.” It is an epic victory of demagoguery and propaganda.

And it is also by definition an example of pre-crime. You haven’t done anything – but you’re in trouble because of what you might do. …

Consider: You are liable to arrest for “drunk driving” in America today even if you aren’t driving at all. You merely have to be in your car – even if you’re in the passenger seat and the car is parked. People who have had one too many and decided to sleep it off in their car have been arrested for DWI just the same as if they had been straddling the double yellow at 65 MPH with a gin and tonic in one hand and their left leg hanging out the window. …

The courts have said that drinking “x” amount of alcohol not only defines “impairment” – it also amounts to intent to drive drunk, whether you’re driving or not. And that intent – imputed, perceived, ginned-up out of nothingness – is what matters.

Is it really a great leap to imagine that political speech – hatriolic speech, as it is being styled – will soon be treated the same way? That to say or even to think something – anything – that smacks of criticism of government and its flunkies will shortly be regarded as tantamount to shooting people?

Gun laws – and the TSA – already operate on this principle.

You have no record of criminal misconduct or mental illness. You’re a taxpayer, a responsible citizen. Yet in several states (and of course, Washington, D.C.) you’re assumed to have criminal intent, and thus, denied the right to own a firearm. If you possess one anyway – even if you have done nothing with it to harm or even threaten to harm another person – then you’re subject to being cuffed and stuffed just the same as if you had actually used it to threaten or harm others.

Pre-crime again.

The TSA subjects people at random – and en masse – to rough and humiliating searches, including invasive physical pat downs, just like cops do to felony suspects. Not because of anything they’ve actually done or even hinted they may do but only because the TSA apes impute “terrorist intent” to anyone who desires to travel by commercial airplane.

Ipso facto.

Just like having a drink before you drive makes you a “drunk” driver – no matter how good your actual driving happens to be.

We’ve upended perhaps the most basic concept of Western jurisprudence – that for there to be a crime, or wrongdoing, there must be an actual criminal act, or wrongdoing.

But a society that embraced the tar baby of pre-emptive wars should not be surprised to wake up one day to find it is now also snuggling the concept of pre-crime – with all its consequences. God bless America. Land of the Free.

I also highly recommend Ricardo’s (statehate) senior report on drunk driving laws, “The Constitutionality of Implied Consent.” I read it yesterday and though I of course already shared his opinion on DUI laws and checkpoints and drivers’ licenses, even someone who disagrees would be hard-pressed to read his thesis and not be convinced.

(via statehate)

3:54 am  •  26 August 2011  •  60 notes

“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

— Ron Paul (via reneepauline)

(via scatteredaesthetics)

8:41 pm  •  25 August 2011  •  14 notes

“That the FBI is engaged in a campaign of defamation and intimidation aimed at this website is not at all surprising, and yet I still can’t accept it emotionally. We have done nothing wrong: indeed, it is the FBI which is clearly in the wrong. Their activities in regard to Antiwar.com are of dubious legality, and are an infringement of our rights to free speech and to organize on behalf of our ideas.”

—

Justin Raimondo discovers that the FBI targeted Antiwar.com, compiled a dossier on Raimondo, and deems the website and its activists a threat to “national security.” (via aheram)

Everyone should take a few minutes to read this article. “Disturbing” doesn’t even begin to describe what is going on in the surveillance state that many of us have the misfortune of calling “home.”

(via statehate)

(via statehate)

5:16 pm  •  25 August 2011  •  117 notes

“Politicians never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money – only for wanting to keep your own money.”

— Joseph Sobran (via ohtara)

(Source: thinksquad, via moralanarchism)

1:47 pm  •  25 August 2011  •  29 notes

“Stop forcing/subsidizing kids to go to school. As a former college professor, I can personally attest that it doesn’t do anybody any favors when classes consist of some students who really want to be there versus others who are there for a checkbox (or worse, because they will get arrested if they skip class). If there’s a teenager who doesn’t want to read To Kill a Mockingbird or learn how plants use photosynthesis, don’t use guys with guns to force him to sit in classrooms against his will. His presence in the classroom will make it harder to teach the other students, who have a better home situation (where the parents stress the importance of a well-rounded education). If you let this teenager leave school and get a job, he may someday mature and see the value in these “higher” things. At that point, he can go back to school, or learn all sorts of things using the Internet and other self-study techniques. In the meantime, rather than sitting in incarceration for years on end, being bored out of his mind and causing trouble with his like-minded friends, he will be learning useful job skills and contributing to society.”

—

Robert P. Murphy, of Mises.ORG

Appropriate, especially after baseballlibertarian’s Is College Worth It post.

—Shared by Elle.

(via citizens-concerned)

10:18 am  •  25 August 2011