FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
In case you weren't aware, or have only been tracking what football players do during the national anthem... There was a shooting in an American church today.
A person died in Tennessee, today. I know it's classy and popular to hate on the President (because OMG did you hear what he said today?) and the constant media-hysteria rakes in dollars and good ratings, but... someone died today. People have been sitting during the anthem since last season (NFL) and other sports/Olympics since it became our 'National Anthem' in 1913. But Trump said something? Oh gee, let's continue the 'hysteria-over-everything-since-the-election' and ruin NFL Sunday for everyone while continually dividing everyone apart with another relatively non-issue. This is LITERALLY another problem created by government. People act like NFL players standing for the anthem has been a longtime thing but it only became a permanent fixture in 2009 when the military gave the NFL a bunch of money to promote patriotism during a period of prolonged war. Before that, teams weren't required to be on the field until after the anthem (though they were on sometimes at their discretion). The media molds the national dialog. 90% of it is distraction. Let's talk about our $20 Trillion debt. The Drug War which disproportionately affects minorities. Civil Asset Forfeiture allows police to take money and property without even bringing charges against citizens. None of our elected leaders are ever accountable while citizens are (because it's the law, and we're a 'Nation of Laws'). People are committing physical violence against others based on religious beliefs. Our social security system is mathematically unsustainable. Our public policies do nothing bad add costs and regulations, yet we want more? We have this thing called the Federal Reserve which isn't discussed because it requires people to learn about something that's not taught in school. Let's have a conversation. I'm not a fan of people sitting during the anthem, but if you're seeking attention, start a conversation. Don't do it just because "OMG Trump said words that hurt my feelings". Want to sit during the anthem? Want to protest? Want to start a dialog? I haven't heard any real dialog past the 20-second Colin Kaepernick interview clip (wearing a Che shirt, no less) where he says there is "injustice in the U.S". OK, and now what? Let's have a conversation. I'm sure the media and the talking points will stick with Anti-Trump rhetoric, pride-in-nation patriotism, "those who have died for the flag"... Let's talk about injustice of the Drug War and spending money our children will have to pay back. Let's talk about why we ONLY vote in people who promise to spend MORE money our children will have to pay back. Let's talk about why people think it's OK to kill unsuspecting citizens in their place of worship because they disagree with their religious beliefs. That's an injustice. But people will just talk about "Merica" talking points instead. Just get politics out of my football. “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum” History of National Anthem Protests Too Long, Didn't Read:"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
From a policy standpoint I don't like Trump, but I find myself supporting him when he goes against this level of dishonesty and distortion of the truth. Those against Trump are so sensational about everything Trump does, that I find myself aligned accordingly just to appose the leftists. Does anyone else fall into this trap?
Literally everything since the election has been hysterical. Turn off the news for one month and what has happened to you? Nothing. Nothing President Trump has done has affected your life. It's all hysteria for hysteria-sake. Trump said that some of those in Charlottesville were "very fine people", and he's right, most of those protesters were not affiliated with white supremacy groups, most just opposed the removing of statues. This is just one of many small examples of what leftists do to create a false narrative. Policy wise, he's a Bill Clinton that likes guns. Not great, but could be worse. But I find myself defending much that he does or says because the narrative from the "other side" is SO false that I just can't let it be. I recommend a book written by Sharyl Atkkisson "The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote".
This book details how political operatives use these little phrases in order to influence public opinion. In this case, the phrase "Trump said they're all fine people" is completely false, but is being repeated and propagated by political operatives with support of the media. By the time it gets to your average Social Justice Warrior, the vast majority will not check if it is true but instead embrace it because it fits with their world view. A false statement only needs a kernel of truth to be considered true in this fake news world we live in.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Now on to the National Anthem. I find this confusion over the difference between patriotism and nationalism very disturbing. These flamboyant displays at sporting events are NOT patriotism. They are for the indoctrination of nationalism.
"Patriotism" is not demanded it is an act of admiration to the collaborative success of good by ones countrymen. It is the show of pride in the brothers and sisters you share the nation with. It is not your duty to show patriotism as it is a gift from each of us the individuals and our choice when to display it. "Nationalism" is a tool, a disease that collectivist like communists, socialists, and fascist, employ to manipulate public opinion to control the masses and dissenters. If you're up in arms over these idiot athletes attempting to protest social issues then you yourself are just as foolish as they are. I have been in the military for 19 years and counting. I serve alongside great brothers in arms who are Purple Heart recipients. We all bleed red white and blue and some of my friends will even stand up at attention for the national anthem if we were out in public or at a restaurant. Great for them. That's what they want to do and they are able to do it and it's awesome. We don't demand that every able-bodied person HAS to stand though. That's not America. Instead I see the following image all over my social media. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
This is an example of why you shouldn't get facts from internet memes.
I've found what is "factual" is often grossly distorted and even "quotes" are often bogus or manipulated by someone to serve their own ideological agenda. This is true when the message is conservative, liberal or even libertarian. Also, it is almost impossible to get all the relevant facts into a meme thus there is gross biasing out of necessity. And none of them list sources leaving you to take it on faith, or do your own research, and most people never do the latter. Look at this one FB meme as an example. What is the source? No source is listed but an "anonymous" teacher in Norway, according to the picture, the source of which is not entirely clear either. We have double anonymity. Is the unnamed teacher the one in the picture? Probably not. Her name is Niina Utso and she is from Estonia, though she now teaches in Finland. Her images is the first that comes up if you do a google search on "Finland teacher." I doubt she was the source, her image was used by the originator of the meme merely to look good. Let's grant that Finland has the "best" school system in the world. I don't know if it does, and haven't considered how to judge that claim. What about the rest? First, consider what is left out.Finland has a homogeneous and small population. The total student population of the country is 20% smaller than what we find in the Los Angeles School District alone. One article I read said Finland's schools tend to be so small most teachers know ALL the students in the school. Small schools tend to be better than large ones. Having only 500,000 students, nationwide, to worry about helps a lot with results. I suspect the main point is the meme's creator wants teachers in the US to be paid like physicians. It is part of the constant theme that US teachers are woefully underpaid. It also implies Finnish teachers are paid far better than US teachers. By the way, Finnish teachers tend to be far better educated than US teachers and many US teachers would not be admitted as teachers there. All Finnish teachers have to finish a rigorous master's program, US teachers have no such requirement. But, assume equal quality of teachers so we are only comparing actual salary. Worldsalaries . org has convenient salary comparisons based on official data. They also look at how salaries compare when purchasing power is taken into account. Using purchasing power parity is important. I am comparing the cost of living in Finland vs the US thanks to the site Numbeo, which keeps this information. Consumer prices in Finland are 28% higher than in the US. Somethings are worse. A meal at McDonald's is over $9 per person, a domestic beer is well over $6, chicken is almost double in price. However, Worldsalaries takes all that into account with the PPP comparison using constant 2005 US dollars. They found the average teacher in the US in those terms was making $4055 per month. (All comparisons are with 2005 dollars.) In Finland, the teacher earned $1,936 per month, on average, taking PPP into account. US teachers are paid about twice as well as their Finnish counterparts. So, what about being paid as much as doctors? That seems like BS, if Worldsalaries data (from Statistics Finland) is correct. In fact, Finnish physicians earns about twice as much as Finnish teachers. Actually, American physicians earns about twice as much as American teachers as well, again according to Worldsalaries when it comes to purchasing power parity in 2005 constant dollars. I think that was the most important section of the meme, it is trying to emphasize the pay issue. As for the other two, students in Finland get more play time than in the US and also spend more time on things like arts and crafts in school. School isn't quite the prison it is in the US. They are also heavy with courses teaching skills like carpentry, metalwork, cooking, etc. They also do not use the stupid standardized testing the US does. So, there is a fail on the implied issue of paying US teachers more, they already earn more than their Finnish counterparts while being less qualified than Finnish teachers. In other words, U.S. teachers would be overpaid in comparison. Accurate in terms of given kids more free time and play time and accurate in terms of testing. I just get the impression the salary was the main issue they were pushing. Should we possibly look into the number of administrators we have instead? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
I have my own business. It's about as simple as a business can be. We want to hire our first employees. In case anyone has any doubt whatsoever about how much more difficult/worse the government makes things for employers and employees (excluding income taxes and 15.3% Social Security & Medicare taxes!), check this out: We have to worry about "wrongful termination." Federal, state, and city law prohibit discrimination/harassment on the basis of the following protected categories: Race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, ethnicity, sex (including pregnancy), gender (including gender nonconformity and status as a transgender individual), age, physical, mental, or perceived disability, alienage or citizenship, past, current, or prospective service in the uniformed services, genetic predisposition or carrier status, familial status, marital status, sexual orientation (including actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality), partnership status, and victim of domestic violence status. We have to comply with the "Fair Labor Standards Act," NY labor law, and the NY minimum wage ($12/hour effective 12/31/17). We have to comply with the "New York Paid Family Leave Act," and the "NYC Paid Sick Leave Law." We've been advised by both an accountant and an employment lawyer that we must retain a payroll provider just to be able to keep up with the constantly changing government rules. We have to register with NY State as an employer. During the process, they ask questions that you literally can't know the answer to at the time you're registering. They also ask probing questions such as, "Does anyone work for you that you don't consider to be an employee?" And guess what? The guidelines around what constitutes an employee versus a contractor are so vague that a lawyer who specializes in employment and a lawyer who specializes in our field can't definitively advise us on what we can do to know whether we're complying with the law. We have to report to the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, comply with the "Wage Theft Prevention Act," and the "Immigration Reform and Control Act." We have to purchase workers' compensation insurance, "NY State Disability Insurance," and "Unemployment Insurance," which "starts" as a 4-5% tax (you have to wait for the State to tell you after you register) and, presumably, goes up from there based on how well our company is doing. (There's also another business tax on top of everything else that kicks in once we hit some arbitrary amount of profit.) We need to deliver "workplace postings" to every employee, even though we don't have a physical office. There's a whole industry around this because the government doesn't even provide the information in any kind of easily accessible way. (Check out complianceposter.com for fun.) What a productive use of our time, energy, and the valuable resources we need to grow! I'm sure our customers love paying higher prices, since they have plenty of disposable income. I bet the people we hire actually prefer having chunks of money taken out of their pay before they get it, because they know they're going to get every inflation-adjusted dollar back someday, and more! Hey, at least we have a government making sure that we don't do anything "wrong." Otherwise we could lie, cheat, and steal, since that's how you succeed in business! And at least we have a government doing everything possible to encourage our business to grow so that we can create jobs and prosperity! Can't wait to discover what other nonsense we have to deal with. These things do nothing but hurt everyone involved. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
If you had to rank the most to least important issues to you in regards to liberty in the United States, how would you rank them?
A. US foreign policy, interventionism, war B. US Monetary Policy, The Fed, etc C. Govt spending, taxes, etc. D. Govt regulation and interference in the economy. (Min wage, ACA, etc) E. The War on Free Speech (if you don't know what this is, you're a hate-filled, racist, misogynist, xenophobe!) F. War on Drugs G. The "Cultural Marxist" threat (Image Below) H. Immigration I. States rights/Succession I. Energy Sustainability and Future Green/Renewable Policy J. "muh roads" K. Taco Tuesday only one day a week (Editor's Note: should be higher?) L. Climate Change M. Other (comment below) Let me know your order! Mine are in order. Cultural Marxism: Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
The Libertarian Party is going to attempt to sue caucuses that have the words "libertarian party" in the name next year if it is not voted down by the delegates at the convention.
This would affect the 2 biggest caucuses in the party that also happen to be more philosophically based: the Radical Caucus and the Mises Caucus. It is my belief that there are interests in the party who have a desire to lock up the identity of the party away from a principled position so that when they likely gain debate access next time around, they will have full control of the party moving forward. They want to make this the Bill Weld party. This is a strong arm tactic that im not even sure the Rs or Ds have done. This affects all of us whether you like it or not, that party will color the view on what libertarianism is moving forward. Why is the LP, who got 3% during their biggest opportunity, doing this? Why is the chairman, Nicholas Sarwark, going on The Jason Stapleton Program and telling him his audience isn't who the LP wants? Why is he baselessly painting the thought leaders such as Tom Woods and Jeff Deist as racists? Why are they adopting the losing tactics of the left (such as Identity Politics, Virtue Signaling, etc)? Don't you think that rousing the Libertarian base to join the party to manage the growth of the party should be a priority? Why are they acting like straight up politicians? It's almost as if they are paid to torpedo the party. Whether you are into the Radical Caucus or the Mises Caucus, if you are one of those people who didn't get in the LP because Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were a joke to you, we NEED your help, we need you to become delegates to stop this and to vote out this hostile beltway takeover that wants to neuter the message and embarrass and misrepresent us to the world. Get some pride in your beliefs and join the fight! Here are the two largest Caucuses: So why is this important?
It's a Caucus to change the Libertarian Party. The LPRC has been around for decades without this bylaw being raised. These is no reason why this is being brought up other than to try and do two things:
- See if the caucuses will capitulate to the whims of the party orthodoxy, and how easy they will do so. - Try and control the branding of the Libertarian Party. In either case, it is the ideas of the caucuses themselves which will drive attention to them or away from them. The LPMC has become the biggest Caucus in a short time due to its ideas, and it will continue to grow as word spreads. The socialist caucus is 20 ironic people and it will stay small and insignificant for a few months before it's just a fb group because socialists don't stay libertarians for very long. The market place for ideas will sort out this stuff easier than decrees on who is allowed and unallowed. Having the moniker LP in the LPMC makes it easier during party voting to align people in common cause. The LP is fighting over control of a powerless org and they are losing ground to simply Libertarian ideas. This is the first chess move in a series of chess moves. They put a knight out in a dangerous position to draw out a response. They were hoping for retreat. If we (as a Caucus) give it to them, all we have done is help kill momentum we have gained. If they (the LP) actually sue, we have a platform you couldn't buy from which to climb much higher than could ever be imagined as a Caucus. It shows weakness on their part of they pursue it, BUT it shows lack of resolve on ours if we give in. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
THE MISLEADING CLAIM: When did “if you work full-time, you should be able to comfortably afford shelter, food, and utilities” become an extreme leftist belief?
THE REALITY: The assertion is an example of both the strawman fallacy (misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack) and the appeal to emotion fallacy (using emotional appeals over established facts). No decent human being, either conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc wishes to impede someone from being able to live comfortably and afford basic necessities.
Let’s address the first part of this claim: that of “if you work full-time, you shouldn’t be living in poverty.” The fact of the matter is, according to the US Census Bureau, approximately 98% of full-time workers (year round) are not in poverty. [a] To suggest that living in poverty while working full time is a huge problem in America demonstrates either ignorance or a complete malfeasance of facts. Regarding housing costs, it is true that those have increased over time. A study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2005 found that since 1950, housing prices have increased by approximately 2% a year. [b] There appears to be many factors for this, but two in particular are 1) – the median size and amenities of houses have increased, and 2) – land use regulations that drive the cost of housing up. Per the Wall Street Journal, the median size of a new single-family home was 2,467 square feet last year, which was the biggest on record as of 2016. [c] Homes are 61% larger than the median size 40 years ago, and 11% larger than a decade prior. The WSJ further states that “American homes have not only been getting larger, they’re also including more bathrooms and amenities such as air conditioning. Some 93% of new houses had air conditioning in 2015 compared with 46% in 1975. About 96% of new homes last year had at least two bathrooms versus 60% four decades earlier.” Obviously, these factors play a role in pricing, a fact the WSJ also notes. The second factor in the housing costs issue is that of land-use regulations. Writing for the Brookings Institute, Ed Glaeser states the following: “How do we know that high housing costs have anything to do with artificial restrictions on supply? Perhaps the most compelling argument uses the tools of Economics 101. If demand alone drove prices, then we should expect to see places that have high costs also have high levels of construction. The reverse is true. Places that are expensive don't build a lot and places that build a lot aren't expensive. San Francisco and urban Honolulu have the highest ratios of prices to construction costs in our data, and these areas permitted little housing between 2000 and 2013. In our sample, Las Vegas was the biggest builder and it emerged from the crisis with home values far below construction costs.” Some may speculate that housing shortages (and therefore higher prices) are due to geographical limitations such as shortages of land. Glaeser, however, while acknowledging this is possibly a small factor, continues by saying: “The primary alternative to the view that regulation is responsible for limiting supply and boosting prices is that some areas have a natural shortage of land. Albert Saiz's (2011) work on geography and housing supply shows that where geography, like water and hills, constrains building, prices are higher. He also finds that measures of housing regulation predict less building and higher prices. But lack of land can't be the whole story. Many expensive parts of America, like Middlesex County Massachusetts, have modest density levels and low levels of construction. Other areas, like Harris County, Texas, have higher density levels, higher construction rates and lower prices... If land scarcity was the whole story, then we should expect houses on large lots to be extremely expensive in America's high priced metropolitan areas. Yet typically, the willingness to pay for an extra acre of land is low, even in high cost areas. We should also expect apartments to cost roughly the cost of adding an extra story to a high-rise building, since growing up doesn't require more land. Typically, Manhattan apartments are sold for far more than the engineering cost of growing up, which implies the power of regulatory constraints (Glaeser, Gyourko and Saks, 2005).” [d] Regarding the second commodity listed in the meme, food, it’s likely counter-intuitive to many people, but cost of food as a proportion of one’s income has actually DECREASED dramatically since 1960, per the US Dept. of Agriculture. The chart in the article shows that the average share of per capita income spent on food fell from 17.5% in 1960 to 9.6% in 2007. As of 2013, it had inched up slightly to 9.9%. [e] As Annette Clauson, a USDA agricultural economist who helped calculate the chart’s data stated, "We are purchasing more food for less money, and we are purchasing our food for less of our income. This is a good thing, because we have income to purchase other things.” Moving on to the last commodity mentioned in the meme, utilities, it is true that utility costs have risen in recent years. Electricity is the most commonly thought of, so for purposes of this post, electricity will the utility discussed. The LA Times has more on the rising electric rates and some of the reasons behind them. [f] • In California, for instance, electricity prices rose 30% between 2006 and 2012, even after adjusting for inflation. • “San Francisco-based Energy + Environmental Economics, a respected consultant, has projected that the cost of California's electricity is likely to increase 47% over the next 16 years, adjusted for inflation” • There are several reasons for higher utility rates, but some are:
Renewable energy mandates, which are the law in 30 states, require the use of wind and solar energy, which are more expensive. As those sources are largely reliant on the weather, they require backup generation, which could add significantly to the consumer’s overall cost. In some cases, renewable power costs as much as TWICE the price of electricity from new gas-fired plants. As we can see, a large portion of the reason for higher utility rates stems from regulatory mandates that only serve to make electric bills higher for consumers. Studies also show that higher utility rates have a negative effect on the low-income bracket in particular. [g] In conclusion, the original meme gets it completely wrong on food costs and the relation between poverty and full-time employment. It correctly states the fact of increased housing and utility costs, but ignores the impact government regulation has had on those sectors. Therefore, the question posed should be: So when and why did “let’s support government regulations to increase the cost of housing and utilities” become the mantra of those who purport to be on the side of “the people?” SOURCES: A: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf B: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11129 C: https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/02/u-s-houses-are-still-getting-bigger/ D: https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regulations/ E: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/your-grandparents-spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do F: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-prices-20140426-story.html G: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/khalil-shahyd/study-highlights-energy-burden-households-and-how-energy-efficiency-can-help Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
The Libertarian Party is going to attempt to sue caucuses that have the words "libertarian party" in the name next year if it is not voted down by the delegates at the convention.
This would affect the 2 biggest caucuses in the party that also happen to be more philosophically based: the Radical Caucus and the Mises Caucus. It is my belief that there are interests in the party who have a desire to lock up the identity of the party away from a principled position so that when they likely gain debate access next time around, they will have full control of the party moving forward. They want to make this the Bill Weld party. This is a strong arm tactic. Looking into it, the R and D caucuses sometimes have the word Republican or Democrat in the name, but never the word Party. This affects all of us whether you like it or not, that party will color the view on what libertarianism is moving forward. Why is the LP, who got 3% during their biggest opportunity, doing this? Why is the chairman, Nicholas Sarwark, going on The Jason Stapleton Program and telling him his audience isn't who the LP wants? Why is he baselessly painting the thought leaders such as Tom Woods and Jeff Deist as racists? Why are they adopting the losing tactics of the left (such as Identity Politics, Virtue Signaling, etc)? Don't you think that rousing the Libertarian base to join the party to manage the growth of the party should be a priority? Why are they acting like straight up politicians? It's almost as if they are paid to torpedo the party. Whether you are into the Radical Caucus or the Mises Caucus, if you are one of those people who didn't get in the LP because Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were a joke to you, we NEED your help, we need you to become delegates to stop this and to vote out this hostile beltway takeover that wants to neuter the message and embarrass and misrepresent us to the world. Get some pride in your beliefs and join the fight! Here are the two largest Caucuses: Libertarian Party Mises Caucus (LPMC) LP Radical Caucus Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |