Skip to main content

That Bread is Mine, Too

Okay, so the State was smashed yesterday morning. Now what?

Obviously, everybody will go his/her own way and make oodles of gold. Some of it will be spent on protection agents and arbitration. And we shall be ever-vigilant against the return of the State!

But what are we going to do if someone wants his money back?


Such a question is far from academic, for one’s view of justice seems to determine one’s revolutionary tactics. Robert LeFevre, the anarcho-pacifist, pursues a purely educational route because he has foresworn the use of defensive restitutive force. What else can he do? Murray Rothbard, enamored with “temporary” political expedients, pursues popular fronts with rightists, then leftists, then partyarchs. With his “double restitution” or “restitution plus punishment” theory, he finds himself allied with the Penal Institution crowd regardless of other alliances.

Ayn Rand seeks unlimited restitution, and since infinity can only be achieved mystically she must resurrect a gover…

It's Not Easy Being Green (New Deal)





Welp, it's Summer in Texas again. Needless to say it's hot as hell, but I'll take this moment to soak up this heat for the next 12 years while I can, because we don’t have a choice…because we’re all gonna die if we don’t… because of temperature…I won’t even say if it’s because it’s too damn hot, or too damn cold because depending on the day and what these progressive-democratic-socialist nuts think or feel, it could be either depending which way the wind blows (or if it’s blowing at all).

So my initial thoughts, as you might have already guessed, is that this thing is complete bull. If “climate change” or “global warming”, or whichever term they feel is more expedient at the time, was such a big deal, then it would be the only thing we’d hear about, everyone would be on board with this.

I don't think that our so-called leaders in power, or Americans for that matter, would be too quick to make the sacrifices necessary to save the planet. I could be wrong though, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that:

People would totally stop buying and selling ocean front properties because they’re afraid of flooding from rising sea levels. We’d all stop driving our cars and riding bikes to work instead to prevent CO2 gasses because carpooling wouldn’t even be good enough. And by the way, Bob Murphy's studies show carbon actually promotes the growth of vegetation…so immediately, what the heck? Oh, and naturally politicians would cease the use of their private jets.

And of course, the U.S. would immediately stop its production of over 9 million barrels of oil a day and stop becoming the world leader in production. We'll just let the Saudis fill the gap. Maybe they’d go as far as to kill off their first borns to eliminate a heavier carbon footprint, because believe it or not, some people actually think that the Earth is warming because there are too many people on the planet. So what? Are you saying you want the human species to die out? Just stop breeding? Good luck telling that to the Catholics. No offense, Catholics. You walked right into that one. Lemme have a little fun in my moment of grief.

People will stop buying and selling baby wipes. Which I know they make flushable ones but to be COMPLETELY HONEST, I am a cheap ass, and buy the non-flushable ones. And I simply do not care if I am “damaging the environment” because frankly, I will commit a polar bear genocide JUST to be sure my ass is squeaky clean. Subjective value, BABY!

And of course, we’d stop all the wars and bring our troops home.

The bottom line is, if we really ever want to see a “change” or improvement in the environment, then we need to use the most efficient and productive methods that we currently have. This will spur innovation for better alternatives. Otherwise we’re taking steps backward.

But let’s be real, politicians don’t really care about the environment or what’s in our best interest similar to their approach to war. It doesn’t help the folks back home. Just specific players and industries. Just like FDR’s “New Deal”, It’s a BS excuse for the state to seize control of industry and individual liberty. Plus, the “new jobs” that will get created are just gonna be BS government jobs requiring little to no skill, making Americans ever more dependent on the state for financial stability. It’s just a continuation of how Progressives bought off the American people with free goodies. This is why Progressivism in an authoritarian, right-wing plot to destroy us all.

 The truth of the matter is, industry and economic prosperity, is the true enemy of the state. By embracing free markets and capitalism, growth is promoted on a large scale by creating more businesses to compete with one another. This competition leads to lower prices, and increases the standard of living for everyone by yielding higher quality of products, and ubiquitous choices. 

But just like taxes: when we do well for ourselves, we get punished by the government. To say that the Green New deal would do just that is an understatement.

This slimy piece of legislation is ironically a pollutant, both to Americans, and everyone in Washington, and no wonder everyone there voted "present". It's polluting economic, and social prosperity. To put it simply, if these pricks care about the environment so much, they’d end the military industrial complex… Uh-oh! No more big, bad bitches for Boeing and Lockheed to show off on MSNBC of who really “runs the world.” 

*Allow me to share some environmental catastrophes due to the MIC below*

   *Updated as of January 14, 2019*

Habitat Destruction and Refugees

Viet Nam - 
  • U.S. forces sprayed herbicides Agent Orange on the forests and mangrove swamps that provided cover to guerrilla soldiers. 
    USAF spraying Agent Orange over
    Vietnam
  • est. 20 million gallons of herbicide were used, decimating about 4.5 million acres in the countryside. Some regions are not expected to recover for several decades.
  • warfare causes the mass movement of people = catastrophic impacts
  • Widespread deforestation, unchecked hunting, soil erosion, and contamination of land and water by human waste occur when thousands of humans are forced to settle in a new area.
Invasive Species

WWII 
  • Military ships, cargo airplanes, and trucks often ALSO carry non-native plants and animals to ride along with the soldiers = invading new areas and wiping out native species in the process. (RATS)
  • Laysan Island in the Pacific Ocean rats nearly wiped out finch, rail, & brought in sandbur - an invasive plant that crowds out the native bunchgrass that local birds depend on for habitat.


Below are some more catastrophes from Lenntech.

Afghanistan Alone! 

2001’s Operation Enduring Freedom, the Genesis of the War on Terrorism (still happening today)

Suffered extensive damage to environment
  • many people suffered health effects from weapons applied to destroy enemy targets
  • estimated 10K villages, and their surrounding environments were destroyed
  • Safe drinking water declined, via destruction of water infrastructure and resulting leaks, bacterial contamination and water theft. 
  • Rivers/groundwater contaminated by poorly constructed landfills located near the sources

80% of Kabul residents lack secure access to clean water

Afghanistan had major forests watered by monsoons. 
  • During the war, Taliban members illegally trading timber in Pakistan destroyed much of the forest cover. 
  • US bombings and refugees in need of firewood destroyed much of what remained. Less than 2% of the country still contains a forest cover today.

 Bombs threaten much of the country’s wildlife. 
  • One the world’s important migratory thoroughfare leads through Afghanistan. 
  • The number of birds now flying this route has dropped by 85%. In the mountains many large animals such as leopards found refuge, but much of the habitat is applied as refuge for military forces now
  • Additionally, refugees capture leopards and other large animals and trade them for safe passage across the border.

Pollution from explosives entered air, soil and water.
  • One example is cyclonite, a toxic substance that may cause cancer
  • Rocket propellants deposited perchlorates, which damage the thyroid gland
  • Numerous landmines left behind in Afghan soils still cause the deaths of men, women and children today.

Increased Production

Even in regions not directly affected by warfare, increased production in manufacturing, agriculture and other industries that support a war effort can wreak havoc on the natural environment. *Are you listening, ladies that run the world?!?*

 During World War I, former wilderness areas of the United States came under cultivation for wheat, cotton, and other crops, while vast stands of timber were clear-cut to meet wartime demand for wood products. Timber in Liberia, oil in Sudan, and diamonds in Sierra Leone were all exploited by military factions. "These provide a revenue stream that is used to buy weapons," says Bruch.

But not even all of this is a good enough threat because as the article says, “in some cases, precision weapons and other technological advances can shield the environment by targeting key facilities, leaving other areas relatively unscathed. ‘You could make the argument that these weapons have the ability to minimize collateral damage.’ ” 
 - Geoffrey Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.

So that just proves these MIC hawks are willing to take the risk and experiment with the technology they have to make war safer.  For a Neo-con, when it comes between the making more war toys and the price of damaging the environment, I’m sure they’d say once more, “the price is worth it.”


Now Neo-cons aren’t the ones behind this plan. AOC for sure isn’t, and even Koala Harris wants a “resolution” in Afghanistan (let's be honest, she's totally a cop). The Neo-cons who are actually in charge like Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t let this pass. But if you ask me, I think this is just a litmus test on all the stupid people in the country for the statists to really see what they could get away with (especially if the Democrats take home to 2020 election). With all the feel-good, lovey-dovey emotionalism that’s so tasty to the pee-brained millennials that are balls deep in student loan debt, how is that not an easy target for these statist parasites to suckle upon? How much of our lives and freedom could they take from us? They come pretty far as it is, and I don’t think they’re stopping any time soon. 
















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Economics of BTC Maximalism

BTC maximalism is a flawed doctrine, fallacious in numerous respects. 

First, if you'd prefer to hear these arguments in audio, check out this recent episode of ABNP, where @mrpseu & I discused these same topics. 

Also, a qualifier: I'm not capable of making, defending or refuting technical arguments. I'll leave that aspect of the debate to others. My concerns with BTC maximalism are entirely economic and can be divided into four areas. 


Based on the criteria for saleability as laid out by the austrian school, BTC is not the most marketable digital commodity.A lack of portability relative to other cryptocurrencies implies BTC isn't as sound of a commodity. Value storage is a secondary function of money and cannot satisfy the use-value requirement of regression theorem. BTC maximalism lays waste to the Hayekian notion of competition as a discovery procedure. This final point was addressed in detail on episode 50 of The Agora, Crypto-Economics and thus, isn't elabor…

Global Warming & Economics

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools.

Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary.

Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compounds th…

Don't Vote for Alex

It is 2019 and in Norway, that means county and city-election year. You can vote for me, but this article is all about why you really shouldn't. [1] There are several ways to say 'No'. This is a story about the time I said 'Yes', what I will stay positive to and what I will be negative toward. 

"But it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve us one oppression" - Samuel Edward Konkin III


First of all, there is some explaining to do: In my last article on the New Libertarian I argued that party politics is a waste of time and that you could use that time more productive so this entire piece seems like its contradicting that one. It might, that is up to you to judge for yourself (and if you want a chat I'm very approachable on Twitter), but in my defense, I will highlight two things:

One: I'm not against solution-finding, culture-building or exchange of ideas. I can give no brighter example of this happening than the…