Flip through any history book and you will see that most of the injustice and destruction that has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people “breaking the law,” but rather the result of people obeying and enforcing the “laws” of various “governments.” The evils that have been committed in spite of “authority” are trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of “authority.”
All they know how to do is grow and grow. Like a tumor on America. There are tax cuts, but the federal government's share of GDP never really goes down long term. This is one of those things where I'm legitimately not sure there is a political solution.
Though that very much depends on which government it is as well as what the problem is. The nations that survived and thrived in history tended to have governments, states, people, etc. that were very good at waging war and defending their countries reg. military force.
And instead of completely giving up on the concept of government and letting only leftists control and use government for their purpose, would it not be much better for the people of the USA to take back their government, clean it up and reform it, and deal with the groups that infiltrated, subverted and took over the government of the USA? You, the shill, who have previously argued for no government (such as here https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg , https://archive.li/gyDmi ), while never once even attempted to meaningfully argue for it, including how a nation and country is supposed to defend itself effectively and with some hope of survival against foreign and external threats, both direct (like military force) and indirect threats (like mass immigration of people that are much less than the best of their origin and directly hostile to the given country and its ways and people). And who also compared the USA to Islam: https://patriots.win/p/12hkhqmyBu/x/c/4DyMGuz1z69 , https://archive.li/Lw6Iy , despite how extremely enslaving (completely overshadowing the slavery period of the USA) and genocidal (including in modern times, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide ) Islam was and is.
Defense is easier than offense, and violent takeover of an existing population is not something you'll find many ancaps advocating.
States persist because people are convinced of their legitimacy (in part due to compulsory education provided by said States)
The path of anarchism is to convince the public of the illegitimacy of government authority to a point where there is a widespread resistance to immoral mandates .
But you guys haven't managed it in any little communes, microstates, ships, rural areas, nowhere. In history, there have been extended periods of anarchy and lack of government in many countries and all sorts of regimes have had their start there. But never an ancap state? Not one. It never ever persists.
Face it, anarcho-capitalism is like communism, it ignores human nature (specifically: ambition, lust for power) and thus it fails every time. The only way it's better is that it fails really fast and thus doesn't hurt people along the way.
And instead of completely giving up on the concept of government and letting only leftists control and use government for their purpose, would it not be much better for the people of the USA to take back their government, clean it up and reform it, and deal with the groups that infiltrated, subverted and took over the government of the USA?
Would it be better than the current state of things? Absolutely.
But it could not be expected to last for long.
We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around - that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'.
― David Friedman
compared the USA to Islam
I compared the US Government to Islam, and I stand by that comparison. Both fundamentally abrogate consent and advocate aggressive violence against peaceful individuals.
To clarify for people, you're not comparing just the current US government to Islam, you're referring to the constitutional government of the Founders as well.
The US constitution was not an attempt to restrain the power of government. But to clarify again, you don't actually believe it was "admirable", you believe it was illegitimate and had no moral authority.
And thus you the shill lie, misdirect, manipulate, etc. to the extreme among other tactics and tricks like you have done before. Especially meaningless (and here seemingly not relevant even!) quotations that you both promote and then attempt to avoid having to defend, apart from meaningless rhetoric, and you blatantly obviously do not believe either.
Though that very much depends on which government it is as well as what the problem is. The nations that survived and thrived in history tended to have governments, states, people, etc. that were very good at waging war and defending their countries reg. military force.
And instead of completely giving up on the concept of government and letting only leftists control and use government for their purpose, would it not be much better for the people of the USA to take back their government, clean it up and reform it, and deal with the groups that infiltrated, subverted and took over the government of the USA? You, the shill, who have previously argued for no government (such as here https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg , https://archive.li/gyDmi ), while never once even attempted to meaningfully argue for it, including how a nation and country is supposed to defend itself effectively and with some hope of survival against foreign and external threats, both direct (like military force) and indirect threats (like mass immigration of people that are much less than the best of their origin and directly hostile to the given country and its ways and people). And who also compared the USA to Islam: https://patriots.win/p/12hkhqmyBu/x/c/4DyMGuz1z69 , https://archive.li/Lw6Iy , despite how extremely enslaving (completely overshadowing the slavery period of the USA) and genocidal (including in modern times, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide ) Islam was and is.
And thus you the shill distract and misrepresent among your previous lying, manipulation, etc. to the extreme among other tactics and tricks like you have done before. Especially meaningless (or otherwise manipulative and dishonest, where it wouldn't surprise me if this quotation describes yourself) quotations that you both promote and then attempt to avoid having to defend, apart from meaningless rhetoric, and you blatantly obviously do not believe either.
Though that very much depends on which government it is as well as what the problem is. The nations that survived and thrived in history tended to have governments, states, people, etc. that were very good at waging war and defending their countries reg. military force.
And instead of completely giving up on the concept of government and letting only leftists control and use government for their purpose, would it not be much better for the people of the USA to take back their government, clean it up and reform it, and deal with the groups that infiltrated, subverted and took over the government of the USA? You, the shill, who have previously argued for no government (such as here https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg , https://archive.li/gyDmi ), while never once even attempted to meaningfully argue for it, including how a nation and country is supposed to defend itself effectively and with some hope of survival against foreign and external threats, both direct (like military force) and indirect threats (like mass immigration of people that are much less than the best of their origin and directly hostile to the given country and its ways and people). And who also compared the USA to Islam: https://patriots.win/p/12hkhqmyBu/x/c/4DyMGuz1z69 , https://archive.li/Lw6Iy , despite how extremely enslaving (completely overshadowing the slavery period of the USA) and genocidal (including in modern times, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide ) Islam was and is.
History is ultimately determined by ideas, and ideas can, at least in principle, change almost instantly. But in order for ideas to change it is not sufficient for people to see that something is wrong. At least a significant number must also be intelligent enough to recognize what it is that is wrong.
His son David is also a great thinker (and still alive):
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations.
This is my favorite. NJ has tolls on the highway, they were/are temporary so long as they are still building or constructing the highway. 75 years later and there’s still plenty of work to be done of course.
If politicians stopped meddling with things they don't understand, there would be a more drastic reduction in the size of government than anyone in either party advocates.
In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores issues regarding children's rights in terms of self-ownership and contract.[108] These include support for a woman's right to abortion, condemnation of parents showing aggression towards children and opposition to the state forcing parents to care for children. He also holds children have the right to run away from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He argued that parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract in what Rothbard suggests will be a "flourishing free market in children". He believes that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces—while "superficially monstrous"—will benefit "everyone" involved in the market: "the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing".[109][110]
In Rothbard's view of parenthood, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights".[109] Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum".[109]
Economist Gene Callahan of Cardiff University, formerly a scholar at the Rothbard-affiliated Mises Institute, observes that Rothbard allows "the logical elegance of his legal theory" to "trump any arguments based on the moral reprehensibility of a parent idly watching her six-month-old child slowly starve to death in its crib".[111]
Is this description correct? Or is the description off, and if so, how? I cannot help but wonder whether Rothbard was a child rapist who did not like that certain governments penalized child rape and child enslavement, such as in https://imgur.com/a/Mv7ZGD2 and https://imgur.com/a/hDS5Rsj . And Rothbard was from New York, which funnily enough also has stuff like this: https://imgur.com/a/jxgfyWT .
You frequently cite the founders who did not merely theorize about such slavery but actually practiced it and legally enshrined it.
That's a distortion of history.
What isn’t widely known, however, is that Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in an early version of the Declaration, drafted a 168-word passage that condemned slavery as one of the many evils foisted upon the colonies by the British crown. The passage was cut from the final wording.
-History.com
11 of the 13 States voted to abolish slavery, but they yielded to 2 slave states.
In the Constitution, Article 1; Section 9, although it allowed the slave trade to continue for 20 more years to appease slave states, laid the groundwork for ending transatlantic slave trade in 1808.
In 1787 Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance outlawing slavery in the Northwest Territories.
1800 Slave Trade Act banned American citizens banned from investment and employment in the international slave trade.
We also used out navy against the Barbary Pirate slave traders throughout this time.
Our nation was NOT founded based on slavery and they did damn near everything they could to end it on Day 1.
I never meant to suggest that it was founded "based on slavery" only that it did allow and in some ways protect the practice.
I recognize efforts were made to end slavery in the drafting of the constitution, but they did not succeed.
As a result, from the start the Constitutional government recognized and enforced (through the fugitive slave acts) the ownership of humans as property.
And I love Jefferson, he's my favorite of the founders, but it's also true that he owned slaves even as he drafted the Declaration.
My point was not that the great ideas and accomplishments of these men should be discarded due to this, but quite the opposite. Even great men make mistakes in judgement. If anything the founders vision for human liberation in a time when slavery was commonplace makes it all the more remarkable.
You aren't even shilling well at this point, leftist shill. And your lies are too blatant and extreme, such as "You frequently cite the founders who did not merely theorize about such slavery but actually practiced it and legally enshrined it." , whom I have not at all cited frequently, and they didn't even live in modern times, an excuse which Rothbard does not have. And a number of them was against slavery even.
Why have you repeatedly in many different comments in this submission and elsewhere promoted what seems to be a person that advocated slavery in the 20th century, and not just slavery, but child slavery and possibly also child rape?
In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores issues regarding children's rights in terms of self-ownership and contract.[108] These include support for a woman's right to abortion, condemnation of parents showing aggression towards children and opposition to the state forcing parents to care for children. He also holds children have the right to run away from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He argued that parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract in what Rothbard suggests will be a "flourishing free market in children". He believes that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces—while "superficially monstrous"—will benefit "everyone" involved in the market: "the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing".[109][110]
In Rothbard's view of parenthood, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights".[109] Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum".[109]
Economist Gene Callahan of Cardiff University, formerly a scholar at the Rothbard-affiliated Mises Institute, observes that Rothbard allows "the logical elegance of his legal theory" to "trump any arguments based on the moral reprehensibility of a parent idly watching her six-month-old child slowly starve to death in its crib".[111]
You claim yourself that this description is accurate, yet you have many times promoted him. Why???? Why not mention it? Or rather not promote him in the first place??? Why do you seem more than fine with it?? And I cannot help but wonder whether Rothbard was a child rapist who did not like that certain governments penalized child rape and child enslavement, such as in https://imgur.com/a/Mv7ZGD2 and https://imgur.com/a/hDS5Rsj . And Rothbard was from New York, which funnily enough also has stuff like this: https://imgur.com/a/jxgfyWT .
I never understood what this meant until the last few years. All that is saying is that people are lazy.
The observation is that in institutions that have no mechanisms for change (such as failure) they will over time attract and be consumed by the lazy and the malicious. Much like parasites consume a host or mussels on ship hulls, if you don't perpetually clean the infection you eventually end up fully paracitized, like that video on youtube of the cricket being led to water only for a giant worm to wiggle out at the end.
Highly suggest people watch some lectures Friedman gave. It might be a bit boring, but I assure you you'll learn more about economics than public schooling ever told you.
I just watched the 2019 Lion King.... Mufasa is the brave noble King who believes you need to protect the land, not yourself. Biden is Scar falsely occupying Pride Rock as King. The hyenas are China destroying everything they touch and glomming onto Scars false power.
Creating shortages with corrupt policies, in order to jack up prices for the benefit of profiteers, is Uniparty 101. Eg Hydroxychloroquine and oil., Even an imaginary shortage ginned up by the fake news will work. Eg clean air.
The government operates of affirmative action. So when you have the same people who are running Africa running your government...believe it or not, it doesn't go well.
Bonus fact: There actually will be sand shortages in the near future. What do you think is the most consumed resource after water? Different types of sand too, desert sand is smooth and bad for manufacturing. Ocean/river sand is rough and widely used for roads, electronics and a wide variety of other applications.
And in the rare instances where it's not as bad, it's worse.
The people that hid Anne Frank were breaking the law. The people that took her to Auschwitz were obeying it.
Todays problems are a result of yesterdays government solutions.
All they know how to do is grow and grow. Like a tumor on America. There are tax cuts, but the federal government's share of GDP never really goes down long term. This is one of those things where I'm legitimately not sure there is a political solution.
Though that very much depends on which government it is as well as what the problem is. The nations that survived and thrived in history tended to have governments, states, people, etc. that were very good at waging war and defending their countries reg. military force.
And instead of completely giving up on the concept of government and letting only leftists control and use government for their purpose, would it not be much better for the people of the USA to take back their government, clean it up and reform it, and deal with the groups that infiltrated, subverted and took over the government of the USA? You, the shill, who have previously argued for no government (such as here https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg , https://archive.li/gyDmi ), while never once even attempted to meaningfully argue for it, including how a nation and country is supposed to defend itself effectively and with some hope of survival against foreign and external threats, both direct (like military force) and indirect threats (like mass immigration of people that are much less than the best of their origin and directly hostile to the given country and its ways and people). And who also compared the USA to Islam: https://patriots.win/p/12hkhqmyBu/x/c/4DyMGuz1z69 , https://archive.li/Lw6Iy , despite how extremely enslaving (completely overshadowing the slavery period of the USA) and genocidal (including in modern times, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide ) Islam was and is.
If Ancap socities can beat normal ones, how come none have ever come into being and survived?
Defense is easier than offense, and violent takeover of an existing population is not something you'll find many ancaps advocating.
States persist because people are convinced of their legitimacy (in part due to compulsory education provided by said States)
The path of anarchism is to convince the public of the illegitimacy of government authority to a point where there is a widespread resistance to immoral mandates .
But you guys haven't managed it in any little communes, microstates, ships, rural areas, nowhere. In history, there have been extended periods of anarchy and lack of government in many countries and all sorts of regimes have had their start there. But never an ancap state? Not one. It never ever persists.
Face it, anarcho-capitalism is like communism, it ignores human nature (specifically: ambition, lust for power) and thus it fails every time. The only way it's better is that it fails really fast and thus doesn't hurt people along the way.
Would it be better than the current state of things? Absolutely.
But it could not be expected to last for long.
I compared the US Government to Islam, and I stand by that comparison. Both fundamentally abrogate consent and advocate aggressive violence against peaceful individuals.
To clarify for people, you're not comparing just the current US government to Islam, you're referring to the constitutional government of the Founders as well.
Yes. The US constitution was an admirable attempt at restraining the power of government but as can now be plainly seen it has failed at that goal.
The USG has gone from one of the most limited governments to the biggest (in terms of expenditure) State ever known to mankind.
The US constitution was not an attempt to restrain the power of government. But to clarify again, you don't actually believe it was "admirable", you believe it was illegitimate and had no moral authority.
And thus you the shill lie, misdirect, manipulate, etc. to the extreme among other tactics and tricks like you have done before. Especially meaningless (and here seemingly not relevant even!) quotations that you both promote and then attempt to avoid having to defend, apart from meaningless rhetoric, and you blatantly obviously do not believe either.
Again, since you distract and evade from it and it is still fully relevant (see https://patriots.win/p/12hkmRkaE2/x/c/4DyMHDfATzQ ):
Though that very much depends on which government it is as well as what the problem is. The nations that survived and thrived in history tended to have governments, states, people, etc. that were very good at waging war and defending their countries reg. military force.
And instead of completely giving up on the concept of government and letting only leftists control and use government for their purpose, would it not be much better for the people of the USA to take back their government, clean it up and reform it, and deal with the groups that infiltrated, subverted and took over the government of the USA? You, the shill, who have previously argued for no government (such as here https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg , https://archive.li/gyDmi ), while never once even attempted to meaningfully argue for it, including how a nation and country is supposed to defend itself effectively and with some hope of survival against foreign and external threats, both direct (like military force) and indirect threats (like mass immigration of people that are much less than the best of their origin and directly hostile to the given country and its ways and people). And who also compared the USA to Islam: https://patriots.win/p/12hkhqmyBu/x/c/4DyMGuz1z69 , https://archive.li/Lw6Iy , despite how extremely enslaving (completely overshadowing the slavery period of the USA) and genocidal (including in modern times, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide ) Islam was and is.
-- Me, because I can form my own sentences
And thus you the shill distract and misrepresent among your previous lying, manipulation, etc. to the extreme among other tactics and tricks like you have done before. Especially meaningless (or otherwise manipulative and dishonest, where it wouldn't surprise me if this quotation describes yourself) quotations that you both promote and then attempt to avoid having to defend, apart from meaningless rhetoric, and you blatantly obviously do not believe either.
Yet again, since you distract and evade from it and it is still fully relevant (see https://patriots.win/p/12hkmRkaE2/x/c/4DyMHDfATzQ ):
Though that very much depends on which government it is as well as what the problem is. The nations that survived and thrived in history tended to have governments, states, people, etc. that were very good at waging war and defending their countries reg. military force.
And instead of completely giving up on the concept of government and letting only leftists control and use government for their purpose, would it not be much better for the people of the USA to take back their government, clean it up and reform it, and deal with the groups that infiltrated, subverted and took over the government of the USA? You, the shill, who have previously argued for no government (such as here https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg , https://archive.li/gyDmi ), while never once even attempted to meaningfully argue for it, including how a nation and country is supposed to defend itself effectively and with some hope of survival against foreign and external threats, both direct (like military force) and indirect threats (like mass immigration of people that are much less than the best of their origin and directly hostile to the given country and its ways and people). And who also compared the USA to Islam: https://patriots.win/p/12hkhqmyBu/x/c/4DyMGuz1z69 , https://archive.li/Lw6Iy , despite how extremely enslaving (completely overshadowing the slavery period of the USA) and genocidal (including in modern times, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide ) Islam was and is.
Love your massive artillery of brilliant quotes!
Keep doing to good work! 👍👍👍👍👍
We are almost at one year of "15 days to slow the spread."
Another Friedman quote that comes to mind: "There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program."
His son David is also a great thinker (and still alive):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
And his grandson Patri Friedman founded the Seasteading Institute...
https://www.seasteading.org/
This is my favorite. NJ has tolls on the highway, they were/are temporary so long as they are still building or constructing the highway. 75 years later and there’s still plenty of work to be done of course.
I mean, I suppose a road is never really done. Gotcha plebs!
Lightning fast sticky!
The spiciest and most relevant quotes, right on cue.
You're the master, NulifyandSecede.
Rothbard, Friedman, and Sowell...
The holy trinity of limited government!
https://media.patriots.win/post/BtBWeCMA.png
According to Wikipedia, Murray N. Rothbard argued in favour of trading children (which smells suspiciously like slavery), at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Children's_rights_and_parental_obligations :
Is this description correct? Or is the description off, and if so, how? I cannot help but wonder whether Rothbard was a child rapist who did not like that certain governments penalized child rape and child enslavement, such as in https://imgur.com/a/Mv7ZGD2 and https://imgur.com/a/hDS5Rsj . And Rothbard was from New York, which funnily enough also has stuff like this: https://imgur.com/a/jxgfyWT .
EDIT: Fixes wrong link reg. https://imgur.com/a/jxgfyWT .
It is an accurate description, and on principle I disagree with Rothbard on this point.
You frequently cite the founders who did not merely theorize about such slavery but actually practiced it and legally enshrined it.
In both cases their good ideas stand as good ideas even in the face of their bad ideas or unfortunate actions.
That's a distortion of history.
-History.com
11 of the 13 States voted to abolish slavery, but they yielded to 2 slave states.
In the Constitution, Article 1; Section 9, although it allowed the slave trade to continue for 20 more years to appease slave states, laid the groundwork for ending transatlantic slave trade in 1808.
In 1787 Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance outlawing slavery in the Northwest Territories.
1800 Slave Trade Act banned American citizens banned from investment and employment in the international slave trade.
We also used out navy against the Barbary Pirate slave traders throughout this time.
Our nation was NOT founded based on slavery and they did damn near everything they could to end it on Day 1.
I never meant to suggest that it was founded "based on slavery" only that it did allow and in some ways protect the practice.
I recognize efforts were made to end slavery in the drafting of the constitution, but they did not succeed.
As a result, from the start the Constitutional government recognized and enforced (through the fugitive slave acts) the ownership of humans as property.
And I love Jefferson, he's my favorite of the founders, but it's also true that he owned slaves even as he drafted the Declaration.
My point was not that the great ideas and accomplishments of these men should be discarded due to this, but quite the opposite. Even great men make mistakes in judgement. If anything the founders vision for human liberation in a time when slavery was commonplace makes it all the more remarkable.
You aren't even shilling well at this point, leftist shill. And your lies are too blatant and extreme, such as "You frequently cite the founders who did not merely theorize about such slavery but actually practiced it and legally enshrined it." , whom I have not at all cited frequently, and they didn't even live in modern times, an excuse which Rothbard does not have. And a number of them was against slavery even.
Why have you repeatedly in many different comments in this submission and elsewhere promoted what seems to be a person that advocated slavery in the 20th century, and not just slavery, but child slavery and possibly also child rape?
Again, given that it is fully relevant, shill:
According to Wikipedia, Murray N. Rothbard argued in favour of trading children (which smells suspiciously like slavery), at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Children's_rights_and_parental_obligations :
You claim yourself that this description is accurate, yet you have many times promoted him. Why???? Why not mention it? Or rather not promote him in the first place??? Why do you seem more than fine with it?? And I cannot help but wonder whether Rothbard was a child rapist who did not like that certain governments penalized child rape and child enslavement, such as in https://imgur.com/a/Mv7ZGD2 and https://imgur.com/a/hDS5Rsj . And Rothbard was from New York, which funnily enough also has stuff like this: https://imgur.com/a/jxgfyWT .
Please see my comment below.
Muh, insert race are "disproportionately hindered in their ability to access a beach during the business workday."
"There's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program."
Was listening to one of Thomas Sowell’s best interviews of all time 2 days ago and Sowell quoted this exact quote!
EDIT:
If anyone wants to listen:
Over a million and a half views . “The dismantling of America under 0bama”
GREAT Sowell interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5SDLBqIubCs
Sowell was a student of Friedman at the University of Chicago.
Sowell was a marxist at the time, and remained a marxist until he actually went to work in government and saw how the sausage gets made.
Yes. He rejected his Harvard/Chicago marxist indoctrinations in his 20s, when he began working for the Labor Dept in 1960:
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2021/01/thomas-sowell-from-marxism-to-the-free-market/
-Trump
<insert stonetoss here>
I never understood what this meant until the last few years. All that is saying is that people are lazy.
The observation is that in institutions that have no mechanisms for change (such as failure) they will over time attract and be consumed by the lazy and the malicious. Much like parasites consume a host or mussels on ship hulls, if you don't perpetually clean the infection you eventually end up fully paracitized, like that video on youtube of the cricket being led to water only for a giant worm to wiggle out at the end.
in other words.
McCarthy was right
Heh. That's funny. I wasn't expecting that.
Highly suggest people watch some lectures Friedman gave. It might be a bit boring, but I assure you you'll learn more about economics than public schooling ever told you.
Here's a good one to start with: https://youtu.be/FHPI1emZFVg
dat nose doh
AND that shortage will be a complete lie.
stop worshipping these libertarian sociopaths. they sold your children to corporations
I will always upvote any Friedman quotes.
Based of the based.
true story
https://archive.is/YjzGO
lol
Context button mods. Great feature we should use more often! Maybe give user the option to add it themselves?
You god damn mind reader...I was just reading MF quotes earlier today.
The TROOF!
"You can have open immigration or you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have open immigration AND a welfare state" - Friedman
What used to qualify as patently obvious common sense, is now verboten.
I just watched the 2019 Lion King.... Mufasa is the brave noble King who believes you need to protect the land, not yourself. Biden is Scar falsely occupying Pride Rock as King. The hyenas are China destroying everything they touch and glomming onto Scars false power.
They'd sell it all to China.
On this? Hell Yes. His opinion on exporting jobs overseas and trade deficits being a good thing? Fuck no.
Creating shortages with corrupt policies, in order to jack up prices for the benefit of profiteers, is Uniparty 101. Eg Hydroxychloroquine and oil., Even an imaginary shortage ginned up by the fake news will work. Eg clean air.
LOL, Milton was great. :)
The government operates of affirmative action. So when you have the same people who are running Africa running your government...believe it or not, it doesn't go well.
This guy is a commie lol
Completely agree.
Bonus fact: There actually will be sand shortages in the near future. What do you think is the most consumed resource after water? Different types of sand too, desert sand is smooth and bad for manufacturing. Ocean/river sand is rough and widely used for roads, electronics and a wide variety of other applications.
I'm watching Free to Choose, and it's fantastic and insightful.
Another fun fact: if Democrats found the cure for racism, they'd hide it. Because without it, poof they disappear. Extrapolate from there.