Julien Thomas Schuessler, 20, was charged with a hit and run, reckless driving, failing to maintain lane control and was released.
Schuessler, posted a video at 2:24 p.m. the day of the primary election, and shows him intentionally pulling off of the road and slamming through a Trump sign. When asked why he would intentionally pull off the road to hit a Trump campaign sign in such a dangerous maneuver, the driver said:
“I did what I felt was morally right. Spread love, not hate.”
“The important thing is to concentrate upon what you can do – by yourself, upon your own initiative.”
-Harry Browne
This post is a condensed version of Harry Browne’s book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. Harry Browne was an author and businessman who was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 1996 and 2000.
Not Harry Browne
Freedom means being able to live your life the way you want to. The more free you are, the more time you spend on what you want to do, instead what you are forced to do or feel obligated to do. The best way to become free is through direct alternatives, actions that do not require the permission or cooperation of someone else.
There are various obstacles to using direct alternatives. Browne calls them “traps” and the most common one is the selfishness trap. Most people are raised to believe that being selfish is bad, and that instead people ought to focus on making each other happy.
Browne has an interesting way of debunking this idea. Suppose happiness is symbolized by a big, red rubber ball. The person who has the ball is happy, but he doesn’t want to be selfish, so he passes it someone else and so on. No one gets to be happy because they just pass the ball to someone else. What is the point of everyone sacrificing their happiness for other people who are also supposed to sacrifice their happiness? There is nothing wrong with wanting to be happy and everyone is selfish (focused on their own happiness) to a greater or lesser degree.
And then there are laws and informal social obligations. How should we handle them? Browne says everyone must decide how much they will comply with the wishes of others. You couldn’t please everybody even if you wanted to. Most people are reluctant to break laws and say no to requests, but you must learn to do these things if you want to be happy. Browne says as long as you break the rules carefully and discreetly, you have little to fear.
In relating with others, Browne says the key is keep the relationship limited to mutual benefit. You don’t have to like all the same things your spouse or lover or friend does. Remember that other people are pursuing their happiness too, and if you block them, they will resent it just as much as you would. For example, it may not be a good a idea to start a business with a friend because the business could change the relationship for the worse.
The long and the short of it is nobody has an obligation to make you happy nor do you have an obligation to make anybody else happy. Realizing this is an exciting feeling. You are not helpless in the face of external forces. You can choose. And even in the worst circumstances, you have control of your own thoughts. You always have some freedom.
There is no escaping the need to use your own judgement. Even when you decide to follow a religious, legal, or moral code, you used your own judgement to select it and you must use your judgement on when to disregard the code.
So be free. There will always be people who will try to tie you up for no good reason. The key is to ignore them.
“You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.”
“I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.” -Frederick Douglass
“Freedom comes only from seeing the ignorance of your critics and discovering the emptiness of their virtue.”
-David Seabury
“Live free or die.”
-NH state motto
“And when someone accuses you of being selfish, just remember that he’s upset only because you aren’t doing what he selfishly wants you to do.”
-Harry Browne
“If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun.”
-Mae West
“Relations are simply a tedious pack of people, who haven’t got the remotest knowledge of how to live nor the smallest instinct about when to die.”
-Oscar Wilde
“To be nobody but yourself — in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you somebody else — means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.”
-e.e. cummings
I apologize for the delay. Compiling the the Derponomicon was an excruciating task, and having to re-read is even more painful.
In this installment, I asked the prog to respond to 2 videos. The first was an argument against the income tax called “I’m allowed to rob you.” The speaker asks why a fancy piece of paper signed by a bunch of people makes it OK to rob someone.
The prog wrote:
“Ok, here it is; The problem (one of many) with Larkins argument is he is not an elected official in any position of leadership or authority. So his example is basically simplified nonsense. If he said he was going to come into your house and rob you, but then in return maintain your house, mow your lawn, fix the stairs and sidewalk and landscaping around your house, protect your house from foreign invaders and fire, and ensure that you receive electricity, food, and water through infrastructure that allows it’s easy transfer, he might have a point. You see for the taxes we pay aren’t just going to a bunch of “lazy freeloaders” who do nothing. A fraction. Of a percentage of our federal taxes go to the poor. A much larger percentage of our federal taxes goes to subsidize the very privatized industries that bring us things like food, fuel, electricity, and water…but we still have to PAY THEM out of our own pockets for the services they provide. Giving needy, desperate, destitute, and even lazy people that don’t want to work, the means to survive is essentially society’s payment to them to keep them from having to resort to crime and violence to feed their families. I am not sure who said it, but there is a quote out there that says “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” Every single day, no matter who you are, are benefitting from.the collective taxation of US citizens. Whether you walk on a sidewalk, turn on a light, use the internet, eat a candy bar, drive in a car, use a computer, use indoor plumbing, etc. All of these things have been facilitated by the government and would not exist in their current for if not for the organization and incentives the government provides. Perhaps instead of worrying about the crumbs the poor are tossed like so many pigeons behind a bakery dumpster, perhaps we should worry about the guys in business suits repossesing everything in the bakery and foreclosing on the property.”
The next video is a dialog between a human and an alien. The alien asks about government and its nature. It becomes clear that the essence of government is violence, which does not sit will with the human interlocutor.
For me, the best part is when the alien says: so you let politicians steal, enslave, and kill, because you’re afraid someone else might?
The prog wrote:
“As far as the British alien video…..I don’t even know where to begin on this one. It doesn’t really seem to be making a case for anything other than some of the laws we have are silly or superfluous. But I don’t think anyone would disagree that speeding laws, or traffic laws, or environmental laws, or drug laws, or gun laws, or many of the other laws we have are unnecessary. I find the ultimate irony is that many anti-government types take all their laws, like the one that tells them at all costs they must hate the gays, for instance, from a thousands of years old book of archaic and ridiculous laws written by men that thought the earth was flat. Truth of the matter is, if you want to live in a civilized society, there will be laws, and a system of government in place. It can’t just be the wild west all time. Look at these war torn lawless societies in Africa, even with all the rapes, child soldiers, and limb removal…it’s really hard to find anyone with any sort of quality of life. It’s easy to bitch about Mom and Dad when they are the only thing keeping warm and dry and fed. I find that anti-government sentiment is tantamount to a petulant 16 year old bitching about how much their parents suck, but without them, they’d be homeless, starving, sex slaves.”
“Well, if you hate the government so much, why don’t you just move to Somalia?!”
This is one of the most common retorts to libertarian ideas along with “libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot.” I’ll save that one for another time.
Progs like talking about Somalia because they think it proves that libertarian ideas about limited government lead to chaos and misery.
As I have said before, there are 3 kinds of derp:
wrong: 2 + 2 = 5
very wrong: 2 + 2 = -17
not even wrong: hammer + tomato = January
The idea that Somalia is a libertarian paradise is solidly in the not even wrong category.
Mogadishu beach
Let’s examine the claim in detail:
1. Somalia is an awful place.
2. Somalia has no government.
3. A lack of government causes misery.
4. Libertarians want to abolish the government.
5. Since a lack of government causes misery, libertarians are wrong.
All of these statements are wrong or irrelevant.
Yes, compared to most countries, Somalia is a bad place to live. However, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, per capita income, and other measures, it’s not that much worse off than the countries around it. The main problem with Somalia is not its weak government; it is poverty. This is the same problem that Somalia’s neighbors Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and others have.
Somalia does have a government. True, it is a weak, provisional government with limited control, but it still has a budget, a parliament, a president, a military, international recognition, etc. Most articles about Somalia are careful to note that it has not had a central government since 1991. They don’t say it has no government. In fact, Somalia has at least 2 major governments (the one based in the capital and the other based in the northern region) and many minor governments headed by warlords.
A lack of government does not cause misery. Many countries with parliamentary systems have gone through long periods with no government because no coalition could win a majority and thus elect a prime minister. Countries on this list include Belgium. Did Belgium fall apart during the 589 days between 2010 and 2011 when it had no government? No.
Libertarians do not want to abolish the government. In the last election, the libertarian presidential candidate got about 3% of the vote and he ran on a platform that included saving Social Security. Most libertarians do want much less government, but there is an important difference between less and none even if some people are too dumb or dishonest to notice.
Lasa Geel rock paintings
The evils of too much government far exceed too little government. Who would choose to live under the totalitarian government of North Korea over the semi-anarchy of Somalia? At least in Somalia I wouldn’t have to worry about me and my entire family for 3 generations being sent to a prison camp because I forgot to put on my mandatory Dear Leader pin. Unlike North Korea, you can leave Somalia without being shot at by border guards.
If Somalia proves anything, it is that socialism always leads to death and suffering. Somalia was a socialist country from 1969 to 1991. It was a one-party socialist state officially allied with the USSR and modeled on it. The USSR switched sides after socialist Somalia attacked socialist Ethiopia (not the first time one socialist country attacked another) in 1979. The dictator of Somalia became increasingly authoritarian after a failed coup which resulted from the failed war in Ethiopia. The dictator was finally overthrown in 1991 by an alliance of rebel groups which then turned on each other.
In short, saying that Somalia proves libertarians are wrong is like saying that a bank robbery proves that money is worthless. No, the reason Somalia is screwed up is because they did the *opposite* of what libertarians want just like the reason the bank got robbed is *because* the money is worth something.
And that is all that needs to be said to the “why dontcha move to Somalia” morons.
I could eat alphabet soup and shit something that makes more sense than this.
In this installment the prog speaks on public sector unions:
On public sector unions…..Is it not ironic that the very people that demonize and whip up anger about public sector unions are public sector government workers that worked to be elected to office, so they could have insane salaries that they could raise on their own anytime, lifetime benefits, and a pension….All at the expense of THE TAXPAYERS. The very same people in fact who will happily pass billions on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, extend insane subsidies and benefits to billion dollar industries, vote for decades long irresponsible trillion dollar wars in league with war profiteers, and throw billions of dollars to the banks and Wall Street gamblers that collapsed our economy? And after all of those TRILLIONS of dollars pissed away they have the nerve to turn the attention on teachers and poor people as the problem? If you took away all the food stamps and teachers salaries and pensions entirely, the entire amount would be a fraction of the above mentioned insane government spending entirely authorized and executed by these teacher/poor person budget hawks. Like always, they give trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars away to the very rich and then attempt to balance the shortfall on the backs of everyone else. It’s almost as if the corporate elites that were making windfall profits off of taxpayer dollars were orchestrating these very calculated and divisive schemes to turn the middle class against one another so they don’t notice who is actually fucking them. The sad thing is, that half of the people actually BUY it and actually blame teachers and poor people for the financial havoc the corporate elite have wrought. It’s almost as if half of the people are in a cult, completely unable to see the strings attached to them and the puppeteers making them dance.
A response on Peter Schiff’s video about banning profits:
I don’t know why you insist on sending me links to the most insane people you can find on the Internet, but here we go; NO ONE has ever advocated banning profits. When people talk about income inequality they are talking about the mere fact that since Reagan, the average CEOs pay has increased a hundred fold or more. There are only so many pieces of the pie to go around, and it seems as the wealthy skim more and more and more off the top, I.e. get richer and richer and richer, there is less to go around and everyone else gets poorer and poorer and poorer. This isn’t rocket science. Corporate profits are at an all time high, wages have not kept up with inflation and have remained stagnant. The ONLY people who are making any upward mobility whatsoever are the fat cats at the very top. If you have 10 people at a pizza party, and five pizzas arrive to feed everyone, and the enormous obese guy takes four pizzas for himself, the other 9 people are barely going to get a slice each. The guy that shows up late is only going to have the crumbs in the box. The problem is not that corporations make a profit, the problem is that they don’t share the profits with the people at the bottom that make them possible.
This post is based on a talk by Evan Sayet some years ago called “Understanding How Modern Liberals Think.” After giving his talk, Sayet received numerous comments that he had discovered the grand unified theory of liberalism. The talk is good, although he goes off on a few too many Team Red tangents for my taste. So this is my modified version of his idea.
When hearing prog opinions, the natural reaction of everyone else is to think that progs must be evil or stupid to believe such things. True, some of them are. But there is a problem here. For example, whatever you think about Michael Moore, he is definitely not stupid. Stupid people don’t make millions of dollars with documentaries. And whatever else you think about Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, they are not evil. They make ice cream with silly names.
Alright, so if they aren’t evil and they aren’t stupid, what is going on? As it turns out, the heart of it is an extremely convoluted thought process that goes like this: of all the different systems people have tried over history, none have created a society devoid of crime, poverty, war, and so on. So, the modern prog concludes from this that the desire to be right is the source of evil. For if no one thought they were right, no one would argue or fight or go to war and so on. If people gave up the search for truth and right, we could all join hands and live happily ever after in the Kindergarten of Eden.
So if no one is better than anyone else, if someone *is* better than someone else, it must be because that they cheated somehow. Therefore, the prog will always side with what is evil, failed, and wrong over what is good, right, and successful. It’s like life is a big roulette wheel, and if the same number comes up over and over, it must be that the wheel is biased.
And the more successful a person or group is, then the greater they must have cheated to get there. This is explains the great hatred most progs have for the US. Only a prog could look at the US, the most prosperous society in history, and see nothing but poverty. Only a prog could look at the US, the least racist society in history, and see nothing but bigotry. Only a prog could look at the US, the most technologically advanced society in history, and see nothing but ignorance. Only a prog could look at the US, the least sexist society in history, and see nothing but misogyny.
How did such an idiotic idea gain widespread adherence? Well, for most of history, you had to be smart and/or lucky to avoid hunger, disease, and poverty. After WW2, these things were largely banished. An entire generation in the US grew up under the illusion that the near paradise they were born into was a fallen world instead of the result of thousands of years of intense effort and numerous setbacks. And even more incredibly, they thought that this state of affairs was so bad that it had to be demolished. That generation has been in charge of the the US government, media, and academia for about 30 years now.
There is hope however. Since progs will inevitably make a mess of things wherever they have control (Sweden, California, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Detroit, Greece…), it is only a matter of time before their rule crumbles.
So take heart, my friends. For though the progs may seem mighty now, they planted the seeds of their own destruction long ago. And those seeds are beginning to sprout.
Many people believe that roads, and hence transport, would not exist without a strong central government, and so therefore limited government is impractical.
It’s important to know why roads exist in the first place. Ancient empires like the Persia and Rome built roads to make it easier to move their armies around and also to speed communication between distant cities. These roads were irrelevant to the vast majority of people because, for most of history, it was rare for a person to travel more than a few miles from where they were born. Only a small fraction of people like soldiers, explorers and traders would routinely travel long distances on land. The only practical way to travel long distances for most of history was by horse, and most people couldn’t afford horses.
For most of history, only capital cities had paved roads because kings wanted their cities to look more beautiful. Building roads is expensive now, but it was even more expensive when everything had to be done by hand.
And what roads did exist were usually privatized. The Romans planted olive trees next to their roads and auctioned off sections. Whoever owned the section got to keep the olives in exchange for maintaining the road.
In England, most roads were locally owned or toll roads until the mid 19th century. A typical owner would only own a few miles of road, which was usually nothing more than a gravel path wide enough for a wagon.
In the early years of the US, most roads were built and owned by private companies that sold stock to raise capital, like Pennsylvania’s 1795 Lancaster Turnpike Company. Later, most long distance travel was by rail and canal, the vast majority of which was built and owned by corporations. Competition from rails and canals led to the bankruptcy of many toll roads which became the property of the states.
Since the states lacked money to maintain these roads, they deteriorated.
All the way up until the advent of cars in the early 20th century, most of the roads in the US were unpaved. Outside the cities, roads were dirt or sometimes gravel. They turned to mud in the winter and dust in the summer. Travel on these roads was slow and unpleasant even in the best conditions.
So to recap the history of roads:
1. Paved roads were rare.
2. Most people didn’t travel long distances on roads.
3. Roads were mainly built to aid the movement of armies.
4. Most roads were privately owned.
The better roads we have now are mainly the result of two inventions: the car (invented by Karl Benz in 1885) and tarmac (invented by Edgar Hooley in 1902). Both these came from the free market. If they didn’t exist, the modern roads we have today would not exist, regardless of what the government did.
It’s also worth pointing out that governments around the world do a poor job of maintaining roads. Of the 25 largest cities in the US, about half the roads have been rated as poor. The city governments have plenty of money to fix roads, but for some reason, they never get around to it.
The best roads are generally found in places with low taxes and government spending. The state with the best roads is Indiana, whose government privatized its highways in 2006. In contrast, San Francisco was rated as having the worst roads in the country despite a city budget of almost $9 billion. Indiana, which has 8 times as many people as San Francisco has a budget of about $12 billion and has had a surplus every year since privatizing its highways.
So rather than being a slam dunk for government, roads are yet another example of how something works better when it is left to the market.
You’re traveling into area that’s next to a place that’s beside a location.
The sort of place that might contain a monster or some sort of magic mirror.
These are just some examples.
It could also be something really, really stupid.
At the rest stop ahead, a poorly stocked vending machine, a few wobbly picnic benches, a plaque to commemorate the Great Cabbage Fart Panic of 1909 placed by the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, and….
THE DERPONOMICON!
First of all, I am pretty sure the woman asking the question is a plant, probably the speaker payed to be there to sensationalize his issues with Muslims. It’s highly doubtful anyone would be that open about their anti-semitism, particularly on a college campus. The assertion here is that this somehow represents the sentiments of all American Muslims or Muslims in general. You know, kind of like anti-semites insist all Jews own the banks and are money grubbing shiesters that need to be stopped. Or how the Westboro Baptists are glad soldiers die because God hates fags. Holding up extremists of any type as representative of an entire group worthy of condemnation, is no different that what the extremists are doing in the first place. In essence, extremists use an extreme minority within a group, to justify condemnation of that entire group. Someone using this video to justify their disdain and distrust of Muslims, is literally no different than posting an article about a black murderer or rapist and using it as an example to justify your hatred of black people. It is the same as equating the Westboro Baptists or Pat Robertson to ALL Christians. It’s like equating Anders Breivik and Wade Michael Page to ALL conservatives. By pointing out extreme examples as justification for bigotry, you are in essence fitting the definition of an extremist. And I am sure you will say I do that all the time….but my intent is exactly that, to show conservatives what it’s like to be lumped in and judged by your craziest extremists. And very rarely do I ever hear a conservative denounce these extremists amongst them, only deflect, defend, deny. Never do I hear “That guy is an as shoe and doesn’t represent my views.” It’s always “But Al Sharptown said this…..or Reverend Wright said that….” As a born Jew, living in am orthodox Jewish neighborhood, I can admit that just about 99% of the Jewish faith is based on their persecution. Literally nearly every holiday and every story in the Old Testament is about the Jews overcoming someone trying to exterminate them. So I wouldn’t doubt for a second, that this guy would have a plant say these things at his lecture to further his agenda.
A baseless accusation of dishonesty. At least this is a different excuse. More deflection and Tu Quoqe.
“It’s highly doubtful anyone would be that open about their anti-semitism, particularly on a college campus.”
Man, that line gets funnier every time I read it.
Next: his response to this video of how the mainstream media tries to deflect attention from the link between Islamic teachings and terrorism
Where do you find these future mall shooters videos exactly? …..Yes Islam seemingly has more extremists than most religions, particularly in other countries where fundamentalist religious zealots control the laws and government, exactly how the religious zealots in THIS country would like to. The problem of course, is that in THIS country, Islamic fundamentalists are not a major issue. You are about ten times more likely to be murdered by a cop, than a Muslim terrorist. The rights obsession with Islam and creeping Sharia law makes about as much sense as equating all Christians to the Westboro Baptists. ALL religions and ALL groups have their extremist crazies, and at the top of the list of threats to national security and terrorist plots, white supremacist Christian militia groups outnumber Islamic fundamentalist t going threats nearly 10 to 1. I am more terrified of a truck full of bearded rednecks on some country back road than I am of a brown guy on a plane. In fact Muslims are much more likely to be attacked or murdered by Christian supremacists in this country than the other way around. Anders Breivik and Wade Michael Page are perfect examples of what all the recent anti-Islam rhetoric produces and it is Muslims, not Christians that are now in the line of fire. White Christian supremacists have infiltrated nearly every level of our government and are as we speak introducing, writing, and passing legislation that has a real effect on the public, a power that Muslims of any stature will NEVER have in this country. Meanwhile we have Christians homophobic, racist, sexist, religiously intolerant zealots in positions of power decrying Islam for being homophobic, sexist, racist, and religiously intolerant. The truth of the matter is no matter what the religion, religious extremists are dangerous to everyone, but in this country the most effective a day dangerous ones are most certainly NOT of the brown persuasion.
Deflection, Tu Quoqe, and then the race card. It’s a regular derp sundae.
“Yes Islam seemingly has more extremists than most religions, particularly in other countries where fundamentalist religious zealots control the laws and government, exactly how the religious zealots in THIS country would like to.”
Contrast of religious fundamentalists
This is a real masterpiece here: conflating violent Muslims fundamentalists with non-violent Christian fundamentalists and what Muslim terrorists actually do with what Christian fundamentalists might (read: wouldn’t) do.
“Islam seemingly has more extremists than most religions…”
But it’s all an illusion! Pay no attention to those dead French cartoonists behind the curtain!
Ronald Reagan switched from Democrat to Republican in 1962. Hillary Clinton was a member of the College Republicans before becoming a Democrat in 1968. Rick Perry switched from Democrat to Republican in 1989. Elizabeth Warren switched from Republican to Democrat in 1996. These examples illustrate the great importance of the political parties as a trustworthy sign of what a politician really believes.
But political parties serve an even more important role: they tell us who we should reflexively hate. Without political parties, voters would be forced to evaluate politicians based on the results of their policies instead mindlessly rooting for their team. Chaos would inevitably ensue.
And don’t get me started about 3rd parties. You shouldn’t vote for them because they won’t get enough votes. Circular logic is fun because circular logic is fun!
This country has a two-party system. It says so right in the Constitution. I think it’s between the part that talks about the separation of church and state and the part that says only people in a well-regulated militia are allowed to have guns.
Here’s how it works: if you vote and your candidate wins, your vote is an implicit agreement to whatever happens next. And if you vote for someone else and they lose, you agree to bound by the decision of the majority by participating in the election. And if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain because the only legitimate form of protest is to vote. So you agree to whatever politicians do whether you vote or not. This is called “consent of the governed.” It’s one of those phrases like “living dead” or “quiet riot” that sounds funny if you think about it too much.
My advice is to only vote for flip-floppers. It’s the safest bet because statistically speaking, you’ll get what you want about half the time.
But political parties serve an even more important role: they tell us who we should reflexively hate. Without political parties, voters would be forced to evaluate politicians based on the results of their policies instead mindlessly rooting for their team. Chaos would inevitably ensue.