FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Tomorrow marks the start of a new year. I've seen a large number of posts on Facebook about the supposedly uniquely horrible nature of 2016. Though it certainly seems that 2016 had its fair share of unfortunate events, the truth is that every year has its highs and lows: very few are uniquely anything. The year that's drawing to a close is no different.
Even so, I try not to dwell in the past. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." It's important to learn from the past and to incorporate those lessons into our future decision making, but since history doesn't necessarily repeat itself, we shouldn't get bogged down in the past. What's more is that frequently the "uniquely horrible" events of one year cannot be truly labeled "uniquely horrible" until well after that year has ended. The best way to commemorate passing years is to draw "lessons learned" and then to focus on coming years. The years past are in the past; they cannot be changed. The years to come are the ones that will affect each and every one of us. Thus, those should be more the subject of discussion than should the unchangeable past. Plus, why spend time dwelling in a prior year when the coming year appears to have its own set of substantial challenges to discuss? During 2017, our country and our world will face a large number of daunting challenges, and a plan for addressing them isn't clear. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have fully delineated plans for tackling our most substantial challenges. (1) The U.S. healthcare system remains deeply flawed, including steep costs and disparities in care that range from the best on Earth to barely acceptable even by the lowest of Western standards. (Plan to address: Murky) (2) Our national debt, which is the only true existential threat we face, will continue to balloon. This imperils not only American prosperity but also that of the entire Earth. (Plan to address: None) (3) ISIS has seen much of its territory seized, has experienced drops in funding and in manpower, and is being pressured on all fronts. Even so, the group remains dangerous, and many more ISIS-inspired and/or -directed attacks should be expected over the coming year. (Plan to address: None) (4) America's educational system will continue to struggle mightily by most metrics. This impacts everything from standard of living to life expectancy to general economic health. (Plan to address: None) (5) The effect of emissions is beginning to have an impact both on the climate and on people's health around the world (lung cancer, etc.). The health and economic costs will continue to mount. (Plan to address: None) (6) Enormous numbers of American workers are unemployed. An even larger number are under-employed. Millions haven't seen a pay raise in years. (Plan to address: Murky) (7) China is challenging American interests in the Pacific Ocean as no country has since Japan during World War II. (Plan to address: None) (8) Russia's Vladimir Putin is increasingly emboldened. From coercing American allies in Europe to meddling in American elections to developing the ability to attack American infrastructure, Putin is a problem for the United States as never before. (Plan to address: Murky) (9) Government spending (especially federal government spending) is completely out of control. The size of our budget is larger than the GDP's of all except three countries. (Plan to address: None) (10) Britain will shake the foundations of Europe by formally initiating negotiations for leaving the European Union. The effects of this action, whether good or bad, will be felt here in the U.S. as well. (Plan to address: Still being developed) Our country faces these challenges without clear direction or planning. We face it more divided than we've been in at least several decades. If this isn't enough to force your focus from the past year to the next one, then I'm not sure that anything could. Furthermore, even though our government appears, on the surface, to be more united than it has been in a very long time (Republicans control two branches outright and may soon control all three), that too goes only surface deep. Republicans lost ground in Congress in 2016 and do not have a filibuster-proof majority. Thus, compromise with Democrats will be required on some issues. Republicans ourselves are divided. Congress and the incoming administration will not see eye-to-eye on every issue (this is already clear). Thus, the White House and Congress will have to compromise even within their own party. All of this adds an additional degree of uncertainty. One thing that should unite us is this though: the success of our government directly impacts the success of each of us individually. Our government(s) regulates our economy, defends our nation, protects us from terrorism, administers our schools, and more. It behooves all of us to pray for the success of our leaders. Let us pray that in 2017 our leaders are wise, thoughtful, and informed. Let us pray that they are willing to compromise when it's prudent and able to stay the course when it isn't. The United States of America is the world's greatest economic, diplomatic, military, and intelligence power (by wide margins in all cases). Here's to doing everything we can to help our leadership protect and expand our strengths over the coming year and beyond. Dear Mr. Republican is a guest post. LibertyLOL does not believe that a Chinese challenge of our 'interests' in the Pacific, Putin 'hacking an election', and global climate-changing emissions are outside of where our principles lie for future American Prosperity. "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
Gridlock in Congress is nothing new, but sometimes all it takes is a little festive spirit to get lawmakers to work together. That’s where so-called "Christmas tree bills" come in, and while they can be useful, they’re also often abused, leaving constituents with no choice but to put their lawmakers on the “naughty list.”
Take action now at this link: Also, don't forget to follow libertyLOL on the countable platform! Tell your senators and congressmen that bills should have one topic. Not a collection of riders. One Bill. One Idea. Debate the merits of the idea. Christmas Tree Bills are indicative of the swamp that needs to be drained. 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:
While I have great fondness for some of the visuals I’ve created over the years (especially “two wagons” and “apple harvesting“), I confess that none of my creations have ever been as clear and convincing as the iconic graph on education spending and education outcomes created by the late Andrew Coulson. I can’t imagine anyone looking at his chart and not immediately realizing that you don’t get better results by pouring more money into the government’s education monopoly. But the edu-crat lobby acts as if evidence doesn’t matter. At the national level, the state level, and the local level, the drumbeat is the same: Give us more money if you care about kids. So let’s build on Coulson’s chart to show why teachers’ unions and other special interests are wrong. Gerard Robinson of the American Enterprise Institute and Professor Benjamin Scafidi from Kennesaw State University take a close look at this issue.
And when the authors say it’s been a “costly failure,” they’re not exaggerating.
By the way, the failure of government schools doesn’t affect everyone equally. Parents with economic resources (such as high-profile politicians) can either send their kids to private schools or move to communities where government schools still maintain some standards. But for lower-income households, their options are very limited. Minorities disproportionately suffer, as explained by Juan Williams in the Wall Street Journal.
But Juan points out that the problems aren’t confined to minority communities. The United States has a national education problem.
This is very grim news, especially when you consider that the United States spends more on education – on a per-pupil basis – than any other country. Here’s a table confirming Juan’s argument. It lacks the simple clarity of Andrew Coulson’s graph, but if you look at these numbers, it’s difficult to reach any conclusion other than we spend a lot in America and get very mediocre results. Juan concludes his column with a plea for diversity, innovation, and competition.
He’s right, but he should focus his ire on his leftist friends and colleagues. They’re the ones (including the NAACP!) standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door and blocking the right kind of education reform. P.S. This is a depressing post, so let’s close with a bit of humor showing the evolution of math lessons in government schools. P.P.S. If you want some unintentional humor, the New York Times thinks that education spending has been reduced. P.P.P.S. Shifting to a different topic, another great visual (which also happens to be the most popular item I’ve ever shared on International Liberty) is the simple image properly defining the enemies of liberty and progress. Republished from Dan Mitchell's blog. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Sanctuary Campuses: Should Colleges that don't comply with Immigration Law NOT get Federal Funding?12/21/2016 No Funding for Sanctuary Campuses Act
This bill would prohibit federal funding for student loans and grants to colleges and universities that adopt “sanctuary campus” policies and refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Specifically, funding from Title IV of the Higher Education Act would be cut off, which funds the Direct Loan, Federal Perkins Loan, and Pell Grant programs among others.
In response to President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to deny federal law enforcement funding to sanctuary cities that don’t comply with federal immigration law, numerous colleges and universities across the country have declared themselves sanctuaries as well. At least 28 higher education institutions have declared themselves to be sanctuary campuses so far. A “sanctuary campus” would be defined as any college or university that:
An institution of higher education wouldn’t be considered a sanctuary campus solely based on having a policy that prohibits its staff from reporting an unauthorized immigrant who comes forward as a crime victim or witness. If this bill is enacted, it wouldn’t take effect for 90 days, so colleges and universities would have time to potentially change their campus policies to comply with this legislation.
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Analysis
It is theft to allow anyone in the world access to US taxpayer money. When an illegal immigrant comes into the U.S. and gets taxpayer funds in order to go to college, the taxpayer suffers unjustly.
Government is responsible in the protection of life, liberty, and property. Taxpayer money is property. The "Argument Opposed" is written with an emotional appeal fallacy. Because, of course, voting yay would be "spiteful". It also claims that it would affect colleges just 'because the school doesn’t want to help deport unauthorized immigrants'. In fact, nowhere does it say the college will assist in deporting illegal immigrants. This bill intends to negatively incentivized those colleges that are going out of there way to get funding from the IS taxpayer for their illegal immigrant students. Why would a University want to be a sanctuary college? Because it expands their market (student population). And with an expanded market comes greater profits and a better bottom line. And where does this taxpayer money go? Why, it's spent THERE AT THE UNIVERSITY thus lining their own pockets. And they say greed is a unique trait of the Right... Other comments:
Follow libertyLOL on Countable.us to see more of our Policy Analysis and Liberty Opinion 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:
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Henry Hazlitt’s 1946 book Economics in One Lesson is regarded as a classic introduction to free market economics. Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman said of the book: “[Hazlitt’s] explanation of how a price system works is a true classic: timeless, correct, painlessly instructive.” The book’s titular lesson argues: The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. The entire premise of the book is found in this one sentence, and the chapters that follow are filled with examples of what happens when economic central planners focus on policy effects to one group while ignoring the secondary effects of their policies on all other groups. Hazlitt goes on to explain, in Chapter 17, the effects of governmental price fixing: Let us first see what happens when the government tries to keep the price of a single commodity, or a small group of commodities, below the price that would be set in a free competitive market. The argument for holding down the price of these goods will run something like this: If we leave beef (let us say) to the mercies of the free market, the price will be pushed up by competitive bidding so that only the rich will get it. People will get beef not in proportion to their need, but only in proportion to their purchasing power. If we keep the price down, everyone will get his fair share. The first thing to be noticed about this argument is that if it is valid the policy adopted is inconsistent and timorous. For if purchasing power rather than need determines the distribution of beef at a market price of $2.25 cents a pound, it would also determine it, though perhaps to a slightly smaller degree, at, say, a legal “ceiling” price of $1.50 cents a pound. The purchasing-power-rather-than-need argument, in fact, holds as long as we charge anything for beef whatever. It would cease to apply only if beef were given away. A similar situation exists in Bitcoin where the independent development team known as Bitcoin Core is artificially suppressing the cost of full-node operation — in effect, impeding free market forces. “This is for the benefit of the consumers,” they say, ignoring the effects of this policy on the >99.9% of Bitcoin users who do not run a full node. As Hazlitt notes, this line of thinking is inconsistent because, regardless of the price at which something is fixed, there will always be people who cannot afford it. The only sound logical conclusions to be drawn from this line of thinking are to either set the price at zero or to allow the price to be dictated by the free market. More tenuous still is the supposition that current full node users will be “priced out” by a block size increase.
Not your typical full node users.
But schemes for maximum price-fixing usually begin as efforts to “keep the cost of living from rising.” And so their sponsors unconsciously assume that there is something peculiarly “normal” or sacrosanct about the market price at the moment from which their control starts. That starting or previous price is regarded as “reasonable,” and any price above that as “unreasonable,” regardless of changes in the conditions of production or demand since that starting price was first established. Bitcoin Core’s central planning inherently declares the cost of node operation today to be reasonable, but this is done without providing any hard data about which users are running a node, much less what their needs are, which costs they can bear, and so on. In discussing this subject, there is no point in assuming a price control that would fix prices exactly where a free market would place them in any case. That would be the same as having no price control at all. We must assume that the purchasing power in the hands of the public is greater than the supply of goods available, and that prices are being held down by the government below the levels to which a free market would put them. Now we cannot hold the price of any commodity below its market level without in time bringing about two consequences. The first is to increase the demand for that commodity. Because the commodity is cheaper, people are both tempted to buy, and can afford to buy, more of it. The second consequence is to reduce the supply of that commodity. Because people buy more, the accumulated supply is more quickly taken from the shelves of merchants. But in addition to this, production of that commodity is discouraged. Profit margins are reduced or wiped out. The marginal producers are driven out of business. Even the most efficient producers may be called upon to turn out their product at a loss. This happened in World War II when slaughterhouses were required by the Office of Price Administration to slaughter and process meat for less than the cost to them of cattle on the hoof and the labor of slaughter and processing. Centralizing Bitcoin In Bitcoin, block space is the commodity supply being artificially restricted. The producers of this commodity are the miners (although they do not produce a physical good, the analogy holds). Restricting the availability of the block space commodity indeed discourages the further production of such. New entrants into the Bitcoin mining business are thereby disincentivized: if the cost of producing a bitcoin has already reached its marginal level, then the profits available to new market entrants are not great enough to incentivize the risk-taking required of new mining operations. By dictating such policies and not allowing goods to be subject to the free-market-at-work, Core discourages new competitors and directly contributes to the centralization of mining! If we did nothing else, therefore, the consequence of fixing a maximum price for a particular commodity would be to bring about a shortage of that commodity. But this is precisely the opposite of what the government regulators originally wanted to do. For it is the very commodities selected for maximum price-fixing that the regulators most want to keep in abundant supply. But when they limit the wages and the profits of those who make these commodities, without also limiting the wages and profits of those who make luxuries or semiluxuries, they discourage the production of the price-controlled necessities while they relatively stimulate the production of less essential goods. The regulators wish to keep the ability of consumers to perform Bitcoin transactions in abundant supply, while simultaneously restricting the available supply of on-chain Bitcoin transactions. Thus the production of “luxuries” or less essential goods is stimulated: Lightning networks, sidechains, centralized clearinghouses, and altcoins. More foolish than the governmental central planners in Hazlitt’s example, many of the goods that Core assumes will pick up the slack for scarcity of on-chain transactions do not even exist yet. Some of these consequences in time become apparent to the regulators, who then adopt various other devices and controls in an attempt to avert them. Among these devices are rationing, cost-control, subsidies, and universal price-fixing. The cost of making a normal Bitcoin transaction becomes too high, so the cost of a segwit transaction shall then be fixed at one-fourth the cost of a regular Bitcoin transaction, Core has decided. Problem solved? Hazlitt explains, When it becomes obvious that a shortage of some commodity is developing as a result of a price fixed below the market, rich consumers are accused of taking “more than their fair share;” or, if it is a raw material that enters into manufacture, individual firms are accused of “hoarding” it. The government then adopts a set of rules concerning who shall have priority in buying that commodity, or to whom and in what quantities it shall be allocated, or how it shall be rationed. If a rationing system is adopted, it means that each consumer can have only a certain maximum supply, no matter how much he is willing to pay for more. We can see this today in Bitcoin when certain transactions are accused of being “spam” or of taking unfair advantage of the limited block space commodity. Nevermind that these so-called spam transactions pay the fair market rate to be included, or that these transactions are slapped with the spam epithet on no grounds other than their frequency or their size. The government may try to meet this difficulty through subsidies. It recognizes, for example, that when it keeps the price of milk or butter below the level of the market, or below the relative level at which it fixes other prices, a shortage may result because of lower wages or profit margins for the production of milk or butter as compared with other commodities. Therefore the government attempts to compensate for this by paying a subsidy to the milk and butter producers. Passing over the administrative difficulties involved in this, and assuming that the subsidy is just enough to assure the desired relative production of milk and butter, it is clear that, though the subsidy is paid to producers, those who are really being subsidized are the consumers. For the producers are on net balance getting no more for their milk and butter than if they had been allowed to charge the free market price in the first place; but the consumers are getting their milk and butter at a great deal below the free market price. They are being subsidized to the extent of the difference — that is, by the amount of subsidy paid ostensibly to the producers. Again, the consumer is told that the price controls are for their own benefit: “Why are you concerned? You’ll be able to make transactions for less than you can now!” But the producers are on net balance getting no more for their block space than if they had been allowed to charge the free market price in the first place. Worse still, if all Bitcoin transaction activity switched to the segwit format overnight, the miners are now being paid the same as before while bearing four times the burden of resources required. That Core does not consider this outcome disastrous is only a testament to the trivial cost of node operation even as resource requirements are increased. Now unless the subsidized commodity is also rationed, it is those with the most purchasing power that can buy most of it. This means that they are being subsidized more than those with less purchasing power. Who subsidizes the consumers will depend upon the incidence of taxation. But men in their role of taxpayers will be subsidizing themselves in their role of consumers. It becomes a little difficult to trace in this maze precisely who is subsidizing whom. What is forgotten is that subsidies are paid for by someone, and that no method has been discovered by which the community gets something for nothing. Stunting Growth Treating segregated witness as a capacity increase, as the Bitcoin Core development team does, ignores that the subsidized commodity is still kept in restricted supply. By not allowing the supply to grow in line with what the free market is capable of providing, discounting segwit transactions allows only for a bit of breathing room until those transactions also end up in short supply and begin rising in cost, as is happening with regular transactions today. Price-fixing may often appear for a short period to be successful. It can seem to work well for a while, particularly in wartime, when it is supported by patriotism and a sense of crisis. But the longer it is in effect the more its difficulties increase. When prices are arbitrarily held down by government compulsion, demand is chronically in excess of supply. We have seen that if the government attempts to prevent a shortage of a commodity by reducing also the prices of the labor, raw materials and other factors that go into its cost of production, it creates a shortage of these in turn. But not only will the government, if it pursues this course, find it necessary to extend price control more and more downwards, or “vertically”; it will find it no less necessary to extend price control “horizontally.” If we ration one commodity, and the public cannot get enough of it, though it still has excess purchasing power, it will turn to some substitute. The rationing of each commodity as it grows scarce, in other words, must put more and more pressure on the unrationed commodities that remain. If we assume that the government is successful in its efforts to prevent black markets (or at least prevents them from developing on a sufficient scale to nullify its legal prices), continued price control must drive it to the rationing of more and more commodities. This rationing cannot stop with consumers. In World War II it did not stop with consumers. It was applied first of all, in fact, in the allocation of raw materials to producers. Assuming that the public has a fixed or growing demand for using money transfer systems, of which Bitcoin is merely one type, then the end result of restricting the available supply of Bitcoin transactions is that more and more pressure is put on unrationed commodities. Whether those unrationed commodities are traditional payment methods or altcoins, the end result spells disaster for Bitcoin. The natural consequence of a thoroughgoing over-all price control which seeks to perpetuate a given historic price level, in brief, must ultimately be a completely regimented economy. Wages would have to be held down as rigidly as prices. Labor would have to be rationed as ruthlessly as raw materials. The end result would be that the government would not only tell each consumer precisely how much of each commodity he could have; it would tell each manufacturer precisely what quantity of each raw material he could have and what quantity of labor. Competitive bidding for workers could no more be tolerated than competitive bidding for materials. The result would be a petrified totalitarian economy, with every business firm and every worker at the mercy of the government, and with a final abandonment of all the traditional liberties we have known. The Bitcoin economy, unlike state economies, is thankfully one of voluntary participation. While the end result of price controls, a petrified totalitarian economy, will be the same, the consumers in the Bitcoin economy have a choice and do not need to remain participants. Packing up and moving to another cryptocurrency is far simpler than packing up and moving to a country with more favorable economic policies, and this is exactly what will happen (we are already seeing it happen with the news of Circle abandoning Bitcoin this week). Attempting to centrally plan Bitcoin’s underlying economics, as the Bitcoin Core developers do today, is guaranteed to lead Bitcoin down the path of irrelevance. This first appeared at Medium.com John BlockeJohn Blocke writes at Medium.com. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
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:
Today's the day: Facebook will begin to identify what it calls "fake news," with the possibility of downgrading it in the news feed and actually labeling it as fake news. Before I say anything else: yes, I know Facebook is a private company, and I know they can have whatever policy they want. There. That deals with the 12 pedantic libertarians who will write to tell me this, as if I didn't know. Or who think, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, that libertarians aren't allowed to criticize particular actions taken by private businesses. Now, back to the grownups' discussion. We can all see where this is bound to lead. The progressives with whom Facebook is in league wouldn't know real news, accurate history, or sound economics if these things punched them in the face. So legitimate if controversial stories will get penalized, stigmatized, and buried. Meanwhile, our keyboard crusaders for justice, who are actually just useful idiots for the regime and the empire, will die a thousand deaths before labeling New York Times stories as "fake," even though Judith Miller lied her way through the run-up to the Iraq war. We all know the fake stories the media has run with just in the past 15 years. THAT fake news certainly affected elections. But not a word. Why? Because the progressive mantra went from "Question Authority" to "Question Powerless Authority. Stand With the Strong." Or: "Question Authority, except the Fed chairman, or the Washington Post, or the New York Times, or the Democratic Party, or the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus, or the regulatory establishment, or Paul Krugman, or the SEC, or the medical establishment, or the central bank, or the Officially Approved Version of American History you were taught in fourth grade." Other than that, knock yourself out! On the other hand, perhaps the rest of us could throw a monkey wrench into the works by calling Salon stories "fake news." Or you could join Gab -- the no-censorship social media platform -- as I have. I'm sticking around on the major platforms, though -- if my enemies are going to let me promote myself using their resources, I'd be a fool not to take them up on that. Facebook claims to be fighting against "fake news," but I truly do fight against fake history. Join me in that noble work. After December 30 my Liberty Classroom master membership jumps back up to $497. Grab now while the grabbing's good: Check Out Liberty Classroom Tom Woods Since Congress and our Intelligence Agencies have little to no credibility amongst the public, Reason.com urges them to heed Justin Amash's call for transparency in the matter.
Reason.com notes "The stories, however, are based on anonymous sources from groups whose records of obfuscations, mistakes, and screw-ups are legendary." Specifically, the Washington Post reports: "It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected," said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. "That's the consensus view." "The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now "quite clear" that electing Trump was Russia's goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters." Neither Amash or Reason.com's skepticism is out in left field here. Let's look at a quick report card of lies told by the CIA and repeated by the New York Times which ultimately led to war. Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam) Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The Washington Post, now claiming Russian hacking led with this headline on Aug. 5, 1964: “American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression”. That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” But there was no “second attack” by North Vietnam — no “renewed attacks against American destroyers.” By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War. Babies dumped out of incubators in Kuwait (Gulf War) The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. Her tear-jerking story included "312 premature babies at Kuwait City's maternity hospital who died after Iraqi soldiers stole their incubators and left the infants on the floor," and of "babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor." The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H.W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by American Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda. Iraqi WMD (2003 invasion of Iraq) The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked. The CIA later declassified the document that supposedly proved our involvement in Iraq, one that persists after 12 years with no end in sight. But its contents are not what top Bush administration officials said during their campaign to sell the war to the American public. Those officials, citing the same classified document, asserted with no uncertainty that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, concealing a vast chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and posing an immediate and grave threat to US national security. Fake CIA videos of beheadings in Syria (Not technically on this list as it failed to get Boots-on-Ground) A 2010 Washington Post article authored by former Army Intelligence Officer Jeff Stein features a detailed account of how the CIA admittedly filmed a fake Bin Laden video during the run up to the 2003 Iraq war. The article, which includes comments from multiple sources within the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group, explains how the agency had planned to “flood Iraq with the videos” depicting several controversial scenarios. “The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory,” the article states. “The actors were drawn from ‘some of us darker-skinned employees.’” If you recall, after a fierce pushback of public outrage at the thought of intervening in Syria, the beheading videos turned the tide of US Interventionism. There are no believable reports at this time that the CIA was directly involved with the fake Foley beheading videos though it's been proven the beheadings we fake and this ia a tool in their toolbox. Don't you think maybe skepticism and investigation are in order? Some have already thought aloud of the possibility that the CIA is hoping to raise enough doubt to change electors from casting faithful Trump votes. There's irony for you. In an attempt to ensure 'Russian Hackers' from affecting our election, Electoral College voters cast votes against the will of the people for an apparent criminal. In its continuing coverage, The New York Times notes that the new revelations aren't even based on new evidence: "The C.I.A.'s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency's briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence—evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments—that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome. It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote. But the conclusion that Moscow ran an operation to help install the next president is one of the most consequential analyses by American spy agencies in years." We should demand transparency. And as long as we're demanding transparency, let's get it as well for Soros donations and for foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation, just in the unlikely event that any of that affected the election. That won't happen though because there was a day where getting information on political people (Nixon) would get you a Pulitzer, these days releasing the truth gets you threats of prison. Finally, the CIA is the masters of the universe whose foreign policy Hillary exemplifies, and Trump potentially threatens. Conflict of interest exists to say the very least. The FBI is denying that there is any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or the RNC. But why don't we start with the CIA and see their evidence. Then, don't stop there. Release information on all the Foreign Elections we have rigged as well. Like this one in Russia: "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:
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
I've been thinking about this for a while: I'd like to write a bit about why I take the positions that I do. Over the last couple of years, I've heard much support and agreement with what I've posted. On the other hand, I know that my posts have angered and annoyed many as well - especially, ironically, some of my fellow conservatives.
Today's post won't be about a specific issue. The political climate has calmed from a boil to a deep simmer, and I think that this is a good time to simply explain my thinking and the reasons that I've taken the positions that I have. To begin, most Americans believe that the two major parties leave them with a poor option and a poorer option. Very few firmly believe in the parties - even in their own party. Republicans should be especially aware of this as we survey the carnage of the primary season. This is failing. Call me ridiculous, but failure is not good enough. It is not good enough to simply be "not as bad as the other side." I have heard Republicans say something like, "We are bad, but hey...at least we aren't the Democratic Party." That is not an acceptable state of affairs. Americans should have parties in which they can believe and of which they can be proud, not ones that are merely tolerable if both nostrils are pinched closed.
Conservative economic, security, tax, and spending policies are sound and should not have merely conservative (narrow) appeal. These are policies that would work for most Americans, yet most Americans do not support the party that espouses them - and haven't supported that party since, shockingly, the 1980's.
In fact, the GOP now loses the popular vote nearly every single election cycle by generally-growing margins. This happens because we frequently lose women and always lose blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and so on. We lose every large American city. Of our four largest states, we consistently lose two (California and New York), occasionally lose another (Florida), and, for the first time in modern history, have seen the fourth (Texas) be labeled "purple," not red. (For a Republican, there is no path to the White House that does not run through Texas, so this should be truly disconcerting.) We can reliably count only on the rural vote - this in a country that is urbanizing. We can reliably count only on the white male vote - the only major demographic that is declining as a percentage of the population. Some argue that 2016's election results should soothe these fears. I disagree. This year, Republicans maintained control of both houses of Congress, but we now have smaller margins in both. (Yes, we lost ground in both.) A Republican won the White House, but he did so against an incredibly unpopular challenger and after losing the popular vote by a record margin (for a winner of the Electoral College, at least). We should not be lulled into a false sense of security by these "paper tigers." The Democratic Party is 11 million members larger than the Republican Party, and the long-term demographic and overall public opinion fundamentals in this country remain decidedly against us. "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
We must not make excuses for all of this. That does no one any favors, least of all ourselves. We must not blindly blame American society, the "liberal media," or any other outside factor. Sure, there are external challenges, but we cannot control those, so it is irrational to concern ourselves only with those.
Let's be honest: there are legitimate problems with the Republican Party itself that push potential voters away. Those are problems that we can influence, and they are where our attention should rest for the time being. We must reform our own party - it's platform, it's message, is messengers, it's strategy, and more. Unless we want to eventually cede permanent control of the White House to an increasingly liberal Democratic Party, we must find a way to get our own Republican house into order. There is no structural reason that American cities could not support us. There is no structural reason that the black community could not support us. These are not laws of nature. It is time for us to broaden our appeal geographically and demographically. It is time for us to be the party that makes people proud to be members and proud to be American. We should not set limits for ourselves or for this country. That is why I have taken the difficult, self-critical positions I have: I want the 21st Century Republican Party to be the "New Republican Party," one that draws the support of broad swaths of American society and that can put conservative principles to work for all Americans. It should be an open and welcoming party. There is room under the conservative umbrella for everyone except for those who don't think there's room under the umbrella for everyone. It is true that there is plenty within the Democratic Party worth criticizing. We Republicans cannot impose change on their party though. We can, however, impose change on our own party, and that is precisely what we should do. The surest way to reform the Democratic Party is to increase Republican appeal. If the Republican Party reformed itself and became the party of choice for Americans, I assure you that the Democratic Party would take notice. We don't do this by being unwilling to compromise. (It's ironic that as much as many Republicans talk about "what the Founders wanted" while also refusing to compromise at all, they fail to acknowledge that the Founders were incredibly proud of their ability to reach compromises with each other. Compromise defined the founding of this nation.) We must sincerely look within ourselves and within our own party and remove everything that should not be there. If you believe that "any of ours are better than any of theirs," then you're very partisan and are not being realistic. (For example, do you think that "any of ours were better than any of theirs" back when Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?) If you think that the Republican Party takes a better position on every single issue than does the Democratic Party, then, again, you're very partisan and are not seeing the true, objective nature of the issues. If you think that the Republican Party is more open and more tolerant than is the Democratic Party, then you're wrong. The truth of the matter is that there are certain demographics that the Democratic Party simply doesn't tolerate well. There are, however, several "classes" of voters that Republicans simply do not tolerate either. Anyone who was "on the edge" as to which party to vote for in this last election and who visited conservative forums online would have found ample reason to doubt the willingness of many Republicans to tolerate differences of opinion, culture, etc. Let's not be hypocritical about this. It is time for critical thinking, balanced information, and objectivity to prevail. We Republicans love to complain about the "liberal media." To be sure, "the media" do tend to the Left. Let's be honest here too though: most Republicans get their news only from Drudge Report, Fox News, The Washington Times, Townhall, Lucianne, and even Breitbart (when we're not simply getting it from late night talk shows and Facebook, a shortcoming that we share with the Democrats). All of those are conservative - not balanced - media outlets. So while the media overall tend to be liberal, we see the problem as even more pronounced than it actually is because we compare it to the sources I just mentioned - sources whose clear objective is to cater to a conservative audience. I think that those sources (except Breitbart) play an important role in the national dialogue because the Right needs to have a voice as well. We should not let ourselves believe that they are fully objective either though. They aren't. During the recent elections, many Republicans were so determined to believe everything they heard and agreed with, that they were willing to accept even stories planted in our media by a hostile foreign power (Russia). Please, let's not be hypocritical here either. We have to be able to acknowledge that ANY source that leans one way (whether conservative or liberal) is not a fully objective source. We should be watching news and taking our information from a set of sources that stretches across the mainstream political spectrum and should then use research and critical thinking to genuinely consider why we disagree with some of what we hear and why we agree with some of the rest. We are every bit as guilty as are the Democrats of seeking out news outlets with which we generally agree and immediately allowing them to confirm our opinions without further question. We are every bit as guilty as are the Democrats of labeling any news source with which we do not generally agree as "biased" and/or as "bought by the" other side. (***As an aside, I'd like to inject one tangential opinion here. I'm very tired of hearing fellow Republicans whine about the "liberal media" and unfair treatment for conservatives. Yes, the media are largely liberal. Yes, conservatives are frequently given a raw deal. That's life though. Politicians campaign for some of the most important and most difficult jobs in the world. If they cannot handle the American media, how then can we expect them to handle hostile foreign leaders? Sure, it's unfair - but it's a whole lot cleaner and fairer than what will be dealt to us by people like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Whining about the media on the part of the GOP is making excuses for failing to resonate with Americans. Do you know who else wasn't treated fairly by the media? Ronald Reagan. He still found a way to communicate his message to the American public and to deliver results. Rather than worrying with the media bogeyman, worry with delivering results. If the GOP takes care of results, then the media will take care of themselves. The votes will come.***) It's time for all of us to be able to see where the other side is right and where we are wrong and to learn from their successes and failures. It's time for us to be able to reach across the aisle. It's time for us to take the initiative - to be very proactive - in healing our nation's divisions. (Yes, we should do this even when we believe that the other side is at fault. Deadlock and division serve the interests of none of us regardless of who is at fault. On the other hand, healing all of this serves all our interests regardless of who makes the "first move." So why not us? Why not the GOP?) Some might wonder why I am being so "partisan": why spend so much time and effort on a party? After all, isn't the country far more important? Indeed it is, and I would love for there to be no political parties at all. One-party rule, however, is not good for anyone except for those who are running that one party, and I am not willing to let us cede more and more ground to the Democratic Party. It would not be good for America if the Democratic Party were the only dominant party just as it would not be good for America if the GOP were the only dominant party. We need competing ideas and choices, and thus America needs the GOP to be viable and to present compelling alternatives. So I see ensuring the long-term health of our parties as helping to ensure the long-term health of this great "experiment in democracy." It is time for us to stop having an "us or them" mentality. It is time for us to stop seeing politics as a zero-sum game. (It is neither zero sum nor a game.) It is time for us to stop allowing another's beliefs to color our impression of that person as liberal or conservative. Policies are what matter. For example, whether someone believes that global warming is real does not determine whether that person is liberal or conservative. Instead, policies - how a person wants to respond to global warming - is what makes that person conservative or liberal. If that person wants to respond with cap and trade, then that's liberal. If that person wants to respond with targeted tax incentives and certain types of entrepreneurial assistance, well, that's a conservative position. This is but one of many examples, but we must stop simply making quick judgments as to who's on "our side" and who's on "their side" based purely on one's beliefs. That's not enough. It's time for us to get back to discussing and understanding policy. After all, policy - not beliefs - is the job of our elected leadership.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Policy should be what influences our opinions, and we should be able to critically analyze policy proposals.
I'm conservative and am proud to be a Republican, but I'm also well informed and am very willing to see the faults in my party, to call them out, and to address them. It was Thomas Jefferson who said that institutions should change with the times. The Republican Party is an institution. We must change with the times. Many people have cursed at me online and/or deleted me from their Facebook because of my positions. These are Republicans who are simply looking for confirmation of their beliefs and who are unwilling to tolerate differences, and persisting on this uncompromising and intolerant path will eventually lead to the GOP's inability to compete successfully for the White House. Why don't you instead try engaging me and understanding why I feel that way that I do? I assure you that it is all with the best of intentions. There is no reason that conservative principles can't appeal broadly. We have to make it so though: we are not entitled to votes. It is not the job of the American people to come to us. Rather, it is our job to go to the American people. I envision a nation with two well-intended parties that respect each other but that simply disagree about matters of policy. I envision an electorate that informs itself and can intelligently discuss matters of politics without personally insulting the other side. Nothing could stop the United States of America if those were the case. Nothing. So why can't it start with us? If we want to make the United States everything she can be for every single citizen, then we must be everything we can be for every single citizen. We don't do that by being exclusive and "not as bad as the other side." We do it by being inclusive and by being effective in our own right. That's my goal, and that's why take the positions that I do. It's time for us to have a party that sees everyone as American first and foremost. Many people "like" statements like this but quietly associate it with being liberal. How many actually incorporate that into their thinking, their posts, their voting, and more? Let it start with us. In short, I take the positions I do because I take the long-term view, not the short-term view. I want the best for our party and our country. That's why. -Dear Mr. Republican 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:
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Don't forget to check out our Drain the Swamp Tracker here!
If you ask what worries me about the incoming Trump Administration, I’ll immediately point to a bunch of policy issues.
Others, though, are more focused on whether Trump’s business empire will distort decisions in the White House. Here’s what Paul Krugman recently wrote about Trump and potential corruption.
I’m tempted to ask why Krugman wasn’t similarly worried about corruption over the past eight years. Was he fretting about Solyndra-type scams? About the pay-to-play antics at the Clinton Foundation? About Operation Choke Point and arbitrary denial of financial services to law-abiding citizens? He seems to think that the problem of malfeasance only exists when his team isn’t in power. But that’s totally backwards. As I wrote back in 2010, people should be especially concerned and vigilant when their party holds power. It’s not just common sense. It should be a moral obligation. But even if Krugman is a hypocrite, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. At least not in this case. He is absolutely on the mark when he frets about the “incentives” for massive looting by Trump and his allies. But what frustrates me is that he doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion, which is that the incentive to loot mostly exists because there’s an ability to loot. And the ability to loot mostly exists because the federal government is so big and has so much power. And as Lord Acton famously warned, power is very tempting and very corrupting. Which is why I’m hoping that Krugman will read John Stossel’s new column for Reason. In the piece, John correctly points out that the only way to “drain the swamp” is to shrink the size and scope of government.
As you can see, Stossel understands “public choice” and recognizes that making government smaller is the only sure-fire way of reducing public corruption. Which is music to my ears, for obvious reasons. By the way, the same problem exists in many other countries and this connects to the controversies about Trump and his business dealings. Many of the stories about potential misbehavior during a Trump Administration focus on whether the President will adjust American policy in exchange for permits and other favors from foreign governments. But that temptation wouldn’t exist if entrepreneurs didn’t need to get permission from bureaucrats before building things such as hotels and golf courses. In other words, if more nations copied Singapore and New Zealand, there wouldn’t be much reason to worry whether the new president was willing to swap policy for permits. Republished from Dan Mitchell's blog. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. 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:
Nobody likes to see individuals stripped of their liberty. Fans of the hit AMC original series “The Walking Dead” have been greeted this season with a brand new villain. Negan is the sociopathic yet alluring post-apocalyptic warlord who exploits brawn and brass to assume disproportionate control over a chaotic world of zombies and frightened citizens. Marking his grand entrance by killing beloved characters, pillaging their communities, and demanding physical and emotional submission as a means of maintenance to his growing empire. His antics give us thrills, chills, and several analogous references to illegitimate hierarchy. Wow, what a guy! Don’t just take my word for it, search #NeganIsAMetaphorForGovernment on Instagram. Negan is truly a natural born bureaucrat. As the mid-season 7 finale approaches, I thought I would share 3 lessons Negan taught us, or rather reminded us about government. (Spoilers) #1 We Are All Negan One distinct advantage to Negan’s army is that he’s convinced all his citizens that they are him. And by convinced, I mean indoctrinated. In several episodes, we see disciples of Negan repeat almost religiously that they are Negan. This tactic is used to protect the leader and instill a sense of mandatory unity. This is very much symbolic of the toxic repercussions collectivism, particularly coercive collectivism, can have on a people. Abandoning their moral individualism in exchange for a strong common identity defined by governance. Not to be confused with a confederation or syndicate, these people aren’t merely cooperating as separate entities with a common interest. This is much more like a federal hierarchy, similar to Washington D.C. Negan provides deliverance and expects nothing short of absolute conformity, lest there be consequences. Which leads us to the next lesson... #2 Rules Matter Rules matter. We all understand this. Rules are guiding principles which shape our conduct with others to achieve the most efficient and productive outcomes for a society or market. Usually, people prefer to create rules via voluntary agreement.If President Negan deems something illegal, disobedience will not be tolerated. But Negan reminds us that all rules aren’t created equal. You can’t simply allow individuals to come to their own moral conclusions and defend their way of life separate from that of the state. That’s too much liberty for comfort.Instead, Negan believes that centralizing the rules is better. In fact, he’s implemented some common laws that can be seen in our own government. Strict gun control, for example. Because safety is a top concern for Negan. After all, why do you need guns for self-defense when you have the police *cough* I mean, the Saviors. It's also worth noting that Negan's gun confiscation ironically was enforced by using the same type of firearm registry many people want our own government to enact. He prefers incarceration to rehabilitation. If you don’t like the rules as they stand, well that’s ok. Negan will just lock you up until you’re a model law abiding citizen. Can’t wait to see how Daryl turns out. And this is true even if your “crimes” don’t violate anybody's personal rights, and even if your private community all voluntarily agree on it being ok. If President Negan deems something illegal, disobedience will not be tolerated. And lastly, the most important rule which also happens to be lesson number 3, pay your taxes. #3 Give Negan Half Your Stuff This is probably one of my favorite lessons Negan teaches. Negan wants to crack down on unregulated zombie apocalyptic capitalism. Levying a 50% tax on producers to help offset the costs of universal housing, security, Negancare and anything else Negan feels like giving you to justify his brute theft. That’s even more progressive than Bernie Sander’s tax proposals. No joke, in the season 7 episode “Sing Me a Song,” one of the characters explicitly compares Negan's actions to taxes. He says: “we have to produce for him whether we like it or not”. I don’t know if there’s a closet libertarian on the TWD writing team or what, but the message couldn’t be delivered any more directly. Negan has a monopoly over a particular set of services. These services are distributed to everyone equally, all courtesy of Negan. All you have to do is give him and his army half of your stuff. But if you refuse these services and decide you want to instead keep your stuff, then you will have to be punished. Through either fines, community service for the Negan Federation, a few months in a prison cell next to Daryl, or in extreme circumstances where you try to defend against this involuntary coercion, you might have to meet Lucille, Negan's preferred execution tool. You may think that this is completely unjust, immoral, and illegitimate. But think about it in the same way you think about government.Nobody likes to see individuals stripped of their liberty Negan, with all his faults and shortcomings, is the price we pay for a civilized society. Granted the only one actively threatening you with uncivilized aggression is Negan, but if we get rid of him, who’s to say a new, more evil central hierarchy won’t spring up to replace his reign? Negan Is Fictional but His Actions Are Real Negan is truly the best and most accurate metaphor for government I have ever seen portrayed in mainstream entertainment. If you find yourself not being a fan of his system of governance, you’re not alone. Nobody likes to see individuals stripped of their liberty. Devoid of their right to property, pursuit of happiness, prosperity, and self-determination. We all want Rick and his group to have freedom from this invasive illiberal tyrant. With that being said, maybe we should expand our desire for freedom beyond our favorite late night zombie drama and reflect on the actions of our own government. Apply that lust you feel for voluntary cooperation, free people and free markets to your friends, neighbors, and by extension, mankind. Then and only then can we can begin to minimize the negative effects that real life Negans are having on our everyday lives. Locally, nationally and globally. TJ BrownTaleed J. Brown is a content intern at FEE and hosts the popular YouTube channel "That Guy T". This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. 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! |