Category: Politics

  • My Take on the Obamacare Repeal – For Me, It’s Personal

    In the early 00’s things were different for me. I had gotten out of college a few years earlier, and taken a job as a software developer doing contract work for steel mills and other industry. While it was a good way to make money, my heart was still into art and design, so I set forth finding a way to combine art and technology into a new career. Enter the Internet. I started a web and print design company on the side as I worked my full time job. I had steady income, and my employer was paying my health insurance premiums. I wasn’t on the company plan because I knew someday I’d want to leave that job and work on my business full time, and having my own policy would make that transition seamless. My employer took out the premiums from my paycheck pre-tax and sent in the premiums for me. So far so good.

    Then things went downhill fast. My employer was accused of not depositing 401(k) contributions from employees. He was also involved in a discrimination lawsuit by an employee he fired. And finally, I was notified by my insurance company that the employer hadn’t paid my insurance premiums even though he’d taken the money out of my paycheck. This was the third time he’d done that, so my insurance company dropped my policy. I attempted to re-apply, but because I have a preexisting condition (I was born with spina bifida), I was rejected by my insurance company and all the others to which I applied. One agent told me that there was an unofficial “black list”, and once one insurance agency rejects your application, your information goes into a database where other insurance companies can see the rejection, and they will also reject you.

    I promptly quit my job and called a few lawyers. Because my employer had given me a check to cover the money he took out of my paychecks, I wasn’t technically “out” anything tangible as far as the law was concerned. There was nothing they could do. I was self-employed, and my wife, one of my three kids, and I were uninsured. (Two of my kids were adopted through foster care so they were still on Medicaid). I was no longer living the dream, I was pretty much screwed.

    I continued on with the business, making a decent living but still under the constant threat of losing everything in the event of a medical emergency. I had hoped to grow the business so that I could create an insurance group, but that never happened. After five years, I shut down the business and took a full time job as a software developer, which is where I sit today as I write this. My dream of working for myself had come to an end.

    The Great Red Hope

    In those five uninsured years, I was not without hope. I had joined the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business Owners) when I started my business. This was during the first years of George W. Bush, when the Republicans controlled everything much like they do today. NFIB was pushing some changes to insurance laws that would have benefited me greatly. With the Republicans in office, they felt they had a chance. They proposed:

    1. Allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

    2. Allowing trade groups and clubs, such as NFIB, to create insurance groups that members could be insured through instead of having to get insurance through an employer.

    Either of those options could have solved my insurance problem. I could look for a policy in another state with fewer limits on preexisting conditions, or that allowed policies that only covered catastrophic events. Or, I could have just gotten insurance through NFIB. I contributed cash, wrote letters, and filled out petitions. In the end, the Republicans did… nothing. The next election they lost seats the Democrats, and their monopoly on power was over. I became bitter and angry, vowing never to vote Republican again. A few Ron Paul articles later, I turned to the dark side of the political spectrum. I was officially a libertarian.

    Enter Obamacare

    When Obamacare was being debated, I was livid. You’d think that I’d love it, considering that I have a preexisting condition and the law was supposed to make sure everyone could get insurance. But everything proposed by the Democrats was the complete opposite of what I knew would work for me and others like me. They would make insurance more expensive, more complicated, and more of a bureaucratic nightmare.

    My ideal solution would be the above two items, to which I would have added a third:

    3. Provide another way for people with preexisting conditions, who were working but could not get insurance elsewhere, to get a policy through Medicare or some other program.

    That’s it. Almost everyone would then have access to health insurance, and the extra competition between states would bring down prices. Of course, this wouldn’t require a huge government program, so the Democrats wouldn’t even consider it. When Obamacare became law, I saw that my initial thoughts were right. If I were still self-employed, there is no way I would be able to afford those premiums.

    The Repeal

    So here we are today, waiting for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare and set things straight, which isn’t happening. While I’m disappointed, I’m not surprised. The Republicans have been here before. They’ve had a chance to use their power to make things better for many people. Whether it’s lack of intelligence, spinelessness, or something else, who knows? But every day I see more proof that neither of the major parties has any intention of doing what’s right or helpful. Democrats just want to create bigger government programs that cement their power, and Republicans want to do pretty much nothing, for fear of pissing someone off and not getting elected next cycle.

    As for me, I’m still sitting behind a desk working for someone else, and I think I’ll be here for a while. The cost of insurance, and the amount of time, effort, and money required to follow regulations required to run a business are more than I’d like to deal with.

  • What are rights?

    A couple years back, I engaged in discussion with a conservative friend who is very philosophical and very well read. He is extremely good at making me question the assumptions I don’t even know I’m making. This conversation is loosely based on the one we had. *Standard Amateur Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been a philosopher. My exposure to philosophy is minimal at best. I may trample over great discoveries of the past without even acknowledging them, or I may walk into giant bear traps without even knowing. This is a stream of consciousness article with minimal editing.Pensive Boater.jpg

    OSCAR: Natural rights are the most important concept in governance. As governments drift further away from recognition and defense of natural rights, they become more evil.

    AUGUST: Absolutely, natural rights like free healthcare, abortions, and public accommodations.

    OSCAR: Those aren’t natural rights, they’re infringements on natural rights.

    AUGUST: Infringements like profiteering, not paying your fair share, and bigotry?

    OSCAR: No, those are consensual activities and mere thoughts.

    AUGUST: So, mere thinking and consent are the difference between rights and infringements?

    OSCAR: Well, no. Those are characteristics of things that are rights, but rights aren’t rights just because they’re mere thoughts or consented to. Rights are consequences of self-ownership.

    AUGUST: Self-ownership means you have unassailable natural rights, like the right to life?

    OSCAR: Yes, self-ownership includes an unassailable right to life.

    AUGUST: You’re saying that, because you have self-ownership, you have an unassailable natural right to life? How do you know this? Does nature somehow affirm this natural right? Or does nature indiscriminately kill you, despite your unassailable right to life? Or is it that people are somehow physically prevented from killing you?

    OSCAR: Well, no, none of that. Rights are more about morality than some law of physics.

    AUGUST: Oh, morality! Right and wrong! Virtue and vice! So, since people have an unassailable right to life, it’s wrong in all situations to kill somebody, including in self-defense, the death penalty, and war?

    OSCAR: There are certainly exceptions. For example, self-defense is the clash of one’s right to life against another’s right to life. In such a situation, the wrong is in the initial aggression that causes the clash of rights.

    AUGUST: I see, so it’s okay to kill your boss for the initial aggression of exploiting your labor.

    OSCAR: No, of course not. Exploitation isn’t infringing a right. You aren’t forced to work for your boss.

    AUGUST: So rights mean that you shouldn’t be forced to do things?

    OSCAR: Yes, rights are things you shouldn’t be forced to do without your consent.

    AUGUST: So, criminals shouldn’t be forced to respect other people’s rights?

    OSCAR: Well, uhm…. rights only extend so far. You don’t have a right to violate other people’s rights. You may only violate their rights when you have their consent or when not violating their rights would cause one of your rights to be violated.

    AUGUST: That seems to rely a lot on what a right is. What is a right?

    OSCAR (now wary of being corner cased to death): Umm, a right is . . . a right is easier to describe than to define. A right is dependent on the interpersonal interaction. A child has different rights in respect to their parents than in respect to a stranger. A right is also dependent on the specific context. Killing a burglar stealing your wallet from your bedroom in the middle of the night is different from killing a fraudster who stole your money by grabbing your credit card information.

    AUGUST: So a right is some undefinable thing that changes wildly with context?

    OSCAR: Well, no. Rights change based on the authority relationship. You have no liberty in view of a superior authority, except as voluntarily ceded or compelled by an even more superior authority. See, for example, the town having no authority in view of the state, except where the state or  federal government grants it to the town. In contrast, you have total liberty in view of an inferior authority. A dog can in no way morally restrain you, except for when you voluntarily abstain for the dog’s benefit. It is only in view of a co-equal authority that rights have any meaning. It is the equality of man and human authority that give meaning to rights.

    AUGUST: So if rights are based on authority and the equality of man, are you saying that rights are attempts to prevent inequity between men and between man and institutions created by man?

    OSCAR: Yes! As with any co-equal relationship, there are certain things solely in the domain of the first, other things that are solely in the domain of the second, and some things that are in an overlapping domain between the two. For example, parenting.

    AUGUST: So, in this Venn Diagram description, your domain is your rights with respect to me, my domain is my rights with respect to you, and the shared domain is collective rights between us and conflicting rights between us. While that may be helpful on a theoretical level to be able to categorize things, it leads into the question, how do I know what is in your domain, what is in my domain, what is in our shared domain, and what is in neither of our domains? In other words, what rights are there?


    Hopefully this conversation is useful to spark dialogue. From this, you can see that my contention is that rights are the boundaries erected between rightful exercise of authority between co-equal people and immoral abuse of authority between the same co-equal people.

    If this type of article has enough interest, I may continue to write in this style in the future, continuing this conversation.

  • Who are the protectionists?

    Shortly after President Trump’s election there were commentators who bemoaned the effect that the new president would have on free trade. And there were reasons for concern. One of the first acts of the administration was to end the Trans Pacific Partnership- a long negotiated free trade pact. This was followed in short order by the administration threatening economic consequences to businesses outsourcing their operations. The president also took to Twitter attacking China as a currency manipulator and reiterated his desire to ‘re-negotiate’ NAFTA. The president also surrounded himself with noted trade protectionists, such as Daniel DiMicco, who is currently a trade representative in the administration. Through his words and actions, President Trump has shown that he is no fan of free trade.

    But the same people who once worried about a revival of high tariffs and onerous sanctions on trade partners are now some of the most vocal proponents of more trade restrictions. To be sure, they are advocating that trade restrictions only be imposed on the right ‘bad guy’ (Iran, North Korea, and particularly Russia) with a bipartisan bill quickly moving through Congress. The bill is unique, in the fact that Congress, which has historically ceded trade authority to the executive branch, has imposed a caveat in this legislation that would prevent the president from unilaterally lifting the trade sanctions. Certainly, the fair weather free traders that support ‘sanctions for me and not for thee’ assert that these three countries pose a unique military threat to the United States and its allies. North Korea is an erratic dictatorship that possesses nuclear weapons; Iran is getting closer to developing its own nuclear weapons (so we’re told); and Russia continues to occupy parts of Ukraine, along with having ‘interfered’ in the most recent presidential election. Respectable society has decided that free trade is important, but not with those who pose an existential threat to our nation.

    Ignoring the question of whether or not these three ‘bad guys’ actually pose a threat to the United States, it’s glaringly obvious that the justification for these economic sanctions, coupled with opposition to others, is rooted in pure hypocrisy. These same ‘free traders’ were just recently lecturing the administration that we should not retreat from opening trade with Cuba, even though that country remains a despotic hell-hole and props up the man-made disaster that is Venezuela by providing arms and personnel. These were the same people that were alarmed every time President Trump talked about penalizing China for currency manipulation and supporting the Kim regime in North Korea. If North Korea poses a unique military threat to the United States, then why are we imposing more meaningless sanctions on that state, while ignoring its Chinese benefactor?

    The response regarding China and Cuba from these selective ‘free traders’ is always the same: engagement is more successful than isolation. Then why doesn’t that philosophy apply to North Korea, Iran, and Russia? It’s clear that neither President Trump, nor his detractors, are particularly keen on actual ‘free trade’. Each one wants to trade with some, while excluding others. The only difference is in who they don’t want to trade with and why. The president, as if ignorant of David Ricardo, wants to restrict trade with countries that enjoy trade surpluses with the United States, while his opponents want to restrict trade with countries identified as the ‘baddies’ by The Weekly Standard. Even those who have whittled the notion of ‘libertarianism’ down to nothing more than ‘free trade and free migration’ seem to be embracing The Weekly Standard mentality. So, since it is obvious to any casual observer that we are all trade protectionists now, can we stop pretending as if the president is the only one that threatens liberal trade?

  • John McCain, Arizona Politics and Libertarians

    [et_pb_section admin_label=”section”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]

    It's not a toomah!
    It’s not a toomah!

    US Senator John McCain (R, AZ) was just operated on for glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer. He has a roughly even chance of surviving for another year, three-year survival rate is in the single digits. Should McCain die in office or resign, his replacement will be appointed by the Governor of Arizona. One unique feature of Arizona law is that the governor must appoint a senator of the same political party as the senator being replaced. This appointment will last until a special election in 2018.

    Current Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is a Republican whose term runs through 2018 and is eligible for re-election to a second four-year term that year. So it seems likely that Ducey will have to appoint a replacement for McCain. Ducey, a businessman prior to his political career, is no libertarian but does have some liberty-friendly positions on shrinking government and school vouchers.

    Arizona is a mostly red state with some libertarian tendencies. Arizona legalized medical marijuana in 2010, but in 2016 rejected Proposition 205, Arizona Marijuana Legalization Initiative, by 2.64 percent. Arizona has some of the most gun-friendly laws in the nation. Arizona voters also elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio repeatedly.

    McCain’s was last elected in 2016 and his term runs through 2022. The best outcome for libertarians is that Gov. Ducey will appoint a young, liberty-friendly senator to replace McCain. Given McCain’s prognosis, his replacement would have a good three to four years of tenure before seeking election. Such a senator would lack McCain’s baggage and track record, and could establish a name for himself or herself before standing for election in Nov, 2022.

    Of the eleven appointed US Senators who have sought election since 2000, only one has failed election. There were an additional eight appointed US Senators during this period who did not seek election. This is, however, a rough metric.

    When discussing terms of office I’m using the last full year of the term of office and discounting the few days of the following year when the term actually ends. Sources Consulted: US Senate website, Wikipedia, Ballotpedia, NRA-ILA.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Can We Unfuck Representative Government?

    Here’s a proposal for a different way of representation to be determined by election, the so-called Fair Vote Act. Putting aside my pet peeve about that sort of naming (as well as ostentatiously “designed” logos and pleas for donation), there’s some interesting points here that I’d love to see argued over so we can get an honest idea of the pros and cons of this proposal. My own take so far is that I’m frankly not in favor of more “democracy” nor “making government work better.” But… anything with the potential to break the Mafia stronghold of Team Red and Team Blue (and their respective donors) has merits worth discussing.

    One thing that stood out to me is the strong probability of total gridlock and ineffectiveness. But perhaps there’s a downside as well.

    Talk amongst yourselves.

  • James Comey: Jilted Lover or Spineless Chump?

    As far as I can tell, there is no other plausible explanation for his actions in retrospect.

    Many of you watched the hearing as I did. Hell, I think it was watched by half of America (not including John McCain apparently). And its hard for me to comprehend how there are any true winners or losers here from either a legal standpoint other than maybe Loretta Lynch losing some footing as being above partisanship when it comes to her department’s handling of the Clinton private email server investigation.

    John McCain in his natural state.

    But what should be attacked vigorously by any responsible authority tasked with oversight or any media talking head is Comey’s ability to be a man and do his job with any form of integrity whatsoever. Because he completely contradicted prior sworn testimony today by suggesting that Trump was attempting to influence him. And that he should have carried himself differently many times with interactions with the President in regards to how he reacted and how he reported (or failed to report) what he perceives months later as attempts to coerce or manipulate the FBI head into dropping investigations.

    I’m sure there is some sense of being awe-struck by someone being summoned to the White House. I would like to think I’d be immune to that, but you never know. But the head of the nation’s federal law enforcement apparatus should never be of that mindset unless he is feeling guilty about something. He has spent his life climbing into situations and relationships that are complicated and him being somehow cowed by a President he believes is acting in an unprofessional and borderline-illegal way defies common sense.

    I swear to tell the truth. Even if its different than the “truth” I told the last time I was under oath here.

    Which leads me to my personal opinion: Comey is changing his tune because he feels like he was wronged. He deliberately leaked government property to a friend so they could be sent to the media. He allowed erroneous leaks to remain in the news in order to damage a President he didn’t care for. He contradicted prior sworn testimony in an attempt to change the public narrative on meetings that he considered “notingburgers” until he was fired to “possible attempts at coercion” in the aftermath of that termination.

    Whatever your thoughts about Donald Trump are, whatever you think his relationship with the Russians was, and whatever you think the Democrats are attempting to accomplish here, one thing should be taken away by anybody with an ounce of brains: Comey is gutless or Comey is grinding his axe. I’ve made my decision. Please discuss yours in the comments.

  • Qatar $#&*storm

    The past two weeks have not been kind to Qatar. The strange little appendage off the Arabian Peninsula has had its landward side cut-off by everyone’s favorite neighbors, the Saudis. They also got a big middle finger up from Arab heavyweight Egypt, and other neighborhood states Bahrain, Yemen (such as it is) and the UAE. Mind you, this is a state that imports almost 100% of its food. So this is going to come to a head, quite rapidly.

    Some of the oddities you will find about this place;

    • 90% of the people there are NOT Qatari (which is why over a quarter of the population is Hindu or Christian – think imported labor).
    • Only a bit over a quarter of the populace are women
    • YUUUGE natural gas reserves
    • Oh yeah, US CENTCOM happens to have an interest in the area (I was too stupid to take a 4 day pass and go there, when I was in Iraq in 2008)

    This has all the elements of a perfectly toxic brew of regional influence struggles, a possible humanitarian disaster and all sorts of nasty knock-on effects.

    I will have to say, I was quite surprised this came to a head so quickly. I think the Saudis are striking while the anti-Iran Trump iron is hot. The war in Yemen is not going well, so they figure it is time to snip off one supporter of the Houthi rebels.

    Keep an eye on this one folks – it could get damned ugly, real fast if one side or the other doesn’t give, soon.

  • The Nation Misses The Point on Counterterrorism

    It was brought up in the morning links (h/t: AmSoc), but deserves expanding upon.

    Grande and Mattis

    The Nation is more concerned with making President Trump and his administration look foolish than they are about taking terrorism or counterterrorism seriously. And I have no doubt that Ariana Grande means well, but she’s dead wrong.  Inclusiveness is no strategy to fight terrorism. It is a strategy to offer people an opportunity to assimilate to an enlightened western culture.  Some people will take that opportunity, as evidenced by the millions of Muslims that live peacefully among people of other religions as well as agnostics and atheists throughout the western world.  But some won’t. And you can be as inclusive as you want to be, but that won’t take away their desire to impose their beliefs upon everyone else, often resorting to terrorism when people aren’t receptive.

    Juan Cole writes:

    Secretary of Defense Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis said in an interview on Sunday that US strategy toward ISIL has moved from attrition to annihilation. Since 2014, he said, the United States has been making it difficult for them to stay in one place, disrupting them and chasing them out of their strongholds (through airstrikes). Now, he said, the new strategy is to surround them and kill them all, to prevent the foreign fighters from returning home to foment more terrorism. He also urged a battle of humiliation against them in cyberspace, depriving them of any mantle of legitimacy. He was unapologetic about the recent Pentagon finding that a US air raid set off explosives in a Mosul apartment building, killing over 100 civilians, and seemed to pledge more reckless airstrikes.

    Certainly there is a case to be made for non-interventionism.  But that’s not the case Ariana Grande is calling for. (If she were, I’d be happy to cheer her on.) She calls for inclusion.  Now tell me, what possible good can come from being “inclusive” toward a regime built on terror? Can we “include” into western culture their belief that women caught without an escort should be stoned to death? Can we “include” into western culture their belief that gay men and women should be tossed to their death from the highest point in town? Can we “include” into western culture the taking of sex slaves when they conquer a city?  And lastly, can we “include” into western culture the celebration of slaughtering innocent people in our cities because we resist the importation of their insane lifestyle? That’s not inclusion. That’s tolerance and acceptance of barbarism.  We, as a society, are better than that.  And while I believe we should remain non-interventionist when it comes to global meddling, once they import that activity to out nations, we should destroy those who would perpetrate those violences with every tool that is constitutionally available to us.

    The strategy of annihilation is sort of like fighting forest fires with gasoline hoses.

    Actually, its not.  An enemy can be annihilated. It can be rooted out and extracted like a cancer. Sure it may pop back up again at a future date, but that doesn’t mean its not worth fighting to eradicate. And its a damn sight better to have tried and failed that to succumb to evil in any form. And I have to say, the strain of any religion that accepts massacring innocent people at a concert for the spread of it, or the killing of any gay person for the spread of it, or the taking of sex slaves and stoning of women not adequately subservient for the spread of it, deserves to be wiped from the face of the earth with all haste possible.

    I will give him partial credit, though. He wrote this:

    George W. Bush’s war on Iraq, in other words, created the exact conditions in that country that were guaranteed to foster terrorism. Washington has never come to terms with its own responsibility for destabilizing the region.

    However, he completely omits the expanded war on terror Obama waged, expanding it to nations Bush never bombed. He fomented rebellion in Libya and Syria, directly leading to the soldiers, and in all likelihood the arms, necessary for ISIS to gain a foothold. He also forgets the overwhelming bipartisan support Bush and Obama both received to wage their wars in parts of the world that posed no threat to us.  I’m sure it was an oversight and not a deliberate attempt to score cheap political points. But it deserves to be mentioned.

    This is real.

    Look, there is no surefire way to prevent terrorism. But once it reaches our shores, the individuals carrying it out deserve to be treated harshly, so long as it is within constitutional limits. And people that are guests here who return to the battlefields of the middle east should be forbidden re-entry. We are under no obligation to “include” their idiocy any longer. Neither does Britain, Germany, Sweden or any other nation that chooses to eject those whose sole purpose is conquest through barbarism.

    If this runs counter to open borders libertarianism, I’ll happily accept the scorn of those friends of mine on this one issue. But open borders can exist at the same time a strong counter-terrorism operation can be waged within the confines of our Constitution. And its time we allowed the warriors to stand up and properly defend us from those who are using “inclusive” appeasement as a means to infect our society with their oppressive, pre-enlightenment form of barbarism.

    **The views in this are mine alone and do not represent the views of other Glibs staff.

  • Civil War II: A Trump Impeachment?

    Image result for russiaIt’s really amusing watching the MSM twist their panties in a wad trying to connect Trump to Russia. They’ve gotten the smallest amount of traction and the chants for Trump’s head have started. Besides the fact that the original Trump to Russia connection is based on innuendo and suggestion, the witch hunt has broadened out into a general search for any connection between Trump and the entire nation of Russia. Like a brain damaged chihuahua, the media chants “Russia! Russia! Russia!” hoping beyond hope that they will scare the GOP and Trump into submission. “We can finally control the renegade!” they think, as they piss away the last of their credibility.

    Although people joke about “alternative facts,” it’s not a joke. There are two prevailing agendas across the country: 1) Trump is LITERALLY HITLER and A RUSSIAN MOLE AT THE SAME TIME!!! 2) Trump is DADDY and GOD-KING OF KEKISTAN, VANQUISHER OF THE SJWs and CUCKS!!! The left has their educational and media empire churning out outrage by the gallon. The right has their independent media matching the outrage of the left.

    Antifa is smashing windows and folks like Based Stickman (who the fuck is Based Stickman and why is he called that??) are bashing Antifa heads in. People are primed to believe that the violence will do nothing but escalate.

    I tend to be quite skeptical of claims that the next civil war is about to start. Like the Rapture, many people have predicted a civil war, only to be laughably wrong.

    However, let’s travel through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of derp. A journey into a scandalous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Derplight Zone!

    TrumpalumpitydumpatrumpThis is Donald. Donald is a normal man, somewhat spoiled, somewhat outspoken. Donald has been a real estate mogul for the last few decades, accumulating a vast amount of wealth and notoriety. Recently, Donald was chosen to be the sacrificial lamb of the GOP to allow Hillary Clinton to ascend to her rightful place as Grand Master of the Lizard People The First Female President of the United States. However, something went wrong. Horribly wrong. Donald had an energy that transfixed the public, and nobody could explain it. Donald became President.

    Okay, I can’t keep the Twilight Zone schtick up, but let’s continue to investigate why this latest push to impeach could lead to a civil war. There is one big reason why: Trump’s election was an unexpected boon to a class of people that have felt trod over by the political elites for decades. People most fiercely defend unexpected gains, especially when it is threatened by their enemy. The Alt-Right has ascended and has labeled Trump as their knight in shining armor, here to wipe out the scourge of establishment politics and social justice. The Fascist Left has also ascended, using Hitlerian tactics while decrying Trump as literally Hitler. While an escalation of rhetoric isn’t a sure sign of war, it is a prerequisite.

    The desperation seen on both sides is significantly more concerning. Antifa Nazis have normalized mob violence and intimidation as protest tactics, and Alt-Righters have responded in kind. This powder keg is gonna blow at some point, and we’re gonna get another Kent State. The question then becomes what happens in response to the deaths of 5 or 10 rioters (of either side). Everything in my mind and heart tells me that a crisis like that would boil up for a few weeks and slowly subside. However, what if it didn’t? What if it boiled up into a tempest?

    I think it’s unlikely but possible that this could happen. Either Antifa is gonna beat some people to death, or the Alt-Righters are going to start shooting when Antifa gets violent in the wrong town. This could escalate to people seeking out the melee to contribute, which could escalate to large-scale violence between groups of people. . . also known as a battle. From there, things could snowball into nationwide insurrection.

    Obviously, I find this quite improbable, but the increasing violence and radical rhetoric inspire some unlikely thoughts.

  • But without government, who would build the People’s House?

     

    Derp, unlike oil, is a resource no country truly lacks. Now I would not dream of going for the crown of the Derpetologist, but I am not above sharing some fine vintage local derp. Now, as in all places, we are spoiled for choice around here, derp wise. But I gave a good long 30 seconds worth of thought about it and decided to go with something representative.

    You may not have heard, but Romania had a bit o’ ye olde communism going on a while ago. It may have been in the news over there, not that we got news back then. Anyway the fellar leading us through the multilaterally developed socialist utopia was a quasi-illiterate former cobbler called Nicky Ceausescu. Ol Nick presided over a country where food was a luxury, heating your apartment on a bitterly cold winter day a dream, and leaving the Utopia for the evil western countries a risky endeavor. Because what says Utopia like risking your life trying to get out?

    Whenever communism is criticized – and believe you me there is plenty to go around- the death, the torture, the oppression, lack of basic goods and lack of liberty – the great counterargument rears its ugly head. Well, someone will say, at least Ceausescu built something. Apartment buildings and industry!! Apartments in hideous brutalist concrete shells. Tiny, difficult to heat, crowded. Narrow alleys, no parking – the proles didn’t need cars, a capitalist affectation – no parks or green spaces. But build them he did, a great act of urban renewal that lead to entire neighborhoods being flattened after the inhabitants were unceremoniously kicked out of their homes. There might be a mayor or two outside Romania who would give this a try given the chance.

    Great Industry was built– randomly, badly placed, horribly inefficient and creating almost nothing of quality.  But it was built. And then it rusted. But everyone had a job! Well, yes, people did pretend work for pretend pay. Everyone had a job; food was scarcer, but jobs were to be had by all, for all the good that did.

    In Bucharest there is one of the largest buildings in the world. It is officially called Palace of the Parliament now, but most Romanians still call it by the communist moniker of The People’s house, or Casa Poporului in the local language.

    Now where the derp got truly amusing was when I heard the argument: without a big government could Romania have built Casa Poporului when it did? The argument was followed, amusingly, by a bit of almost self-awareness. The guy actually told me “I don’t want to hear about the need or efficiency of the building, but the principle stands that you need big government for large project such as that.”

    For what was before there, if anyone is interested, you can see more here (not my blog/pictures).

    So I ask you, libertarians, without big government could you evict hundreds of families, tear down their homes, and waste a tremendous amount of very scarce resources a poor country could ill afford in order to build a megalomaniac’s wet dream of a pointless slab of concrete full of marble and gilded chandeliers, without bothering to ask questions of its need or efficiency. Well, my humble answer would be no. How the bloody hell is that a bad thing?

    Funny enough, as a country gets rich enough, you will have some big pointless stuff being build, by rich people using their own money. But probably not to the scale of the Peoples House and probably not in the stage of development Romania was in.

    Also, the Danube to Black Sea canal would definitely not have been built. That is the place where the enemies of the revolution were sent to dig hard soil by using spades and shovels, with evening beatings as the recreation and leisure part of the day, and starvation level diets to avoid obesity and diabetes and such. No one knows how many died at the Canal, and how many lived in fear of being sent to the Canal for no apparent reason. So I ask you this, without Big government, who would send the wreckers to dig the canal, huh? Checkmate, libertarians.