Obama: "Cynical geniuses" in GOP have tricked Americans into not liking government


Surely it’s not that government stifles progress, holds people in poverty, invades privacy, wastes enormous amounts of money, regulates businesses into oblivion, attacks religious liberty, and erodes personal liberty.  No, it’s just that “cynical geniuses” in the Republican party have tricked you into believing so.  Thats why you don’t trust the government, says Barack Obama, the man in charge of the largest government in history. 

from AP:

President Obama on Friday blamed dysfunction in Congress on a Republican Party he said is captive to an ideologically rigid, unproductive and cynical faction, urging like-minded Democrats to show up for November’s midterm elections.

Addressing Democratic donors at a fundraiser in Rhode Island and another in New York, Obama said Republicans had realized that blocking all progress led Americans to become cynical about government. Republicans consider that “a pretty good thing” because they don’t believe in government to begin with, Obama said.

"It doesn’t have to be that way," Obama said during a barbecue in Purchase, New York. "There has been a certain cynical genius to what some of these folks have done in Washington."

Later, at an event in Newport, Rhode Island, he told donors: “The answer to our challenges is actually pretty simple. We need a better Congress.”

read the rest

Shorter Obama: “All my problems are somebody else’s fault, and if you don’t believe me, you’ve been duped by cynical geniuses.”

How many times do you have to explain to the state to stay out of shit.

Stay out of the lives of parents and their dependents.

Stay out of people’s sex lives.

Stay out of individual lives and don’t rule on what they choose to do or not to do with their bodies.

If nobody’s liberty and life is threatened, stay the fuck out of individual exchanges.

Is this too difficult to understand?

anonymous said:

Don't you think that opening the market of force will just create another monopoly on force?

This is a fantastic question. This question asks if abolishing our current monopoly on force (the state) and allowing those functions to be handled voluntarily will open the door for a new monopoly on force (a new state) to form from among those interactions. Before I answer, I want to point out that naturally I think many of the state’s violent functions aren’t fit to exist in the first place. However, there are some functions that are needed—primarily the need for defense against those who would attempt violence on the innocent.

My answer is the standard answer you will get from anyone coming from an individualist anarchist point-of-view: state interference in the marketplace is anti-competitive and therefore facilitates the creation of monopolies in the first place, and they are unlikely to form on their own. We assert that monopolies/large corporations owe their existence to a mutually-beneficial symbiotic relationship with state powers. For example, Benjamin Tucker wrote a piece about the “four monopolies” supported by the state that have led to our current manifestation of the capitalist system: money, land, tariffs, and patents, and also said that “when Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority, and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal.”

Whether through IP-related laws, subsidies, or legislation that outright bans competitors from offering services under the threat of violence (the case with most government-provided services), government intervention provides various degrees of immunity to competition. Therefore, in absence of this power, I and many others view the marketplace as likely to disperse rather than concentrate, and do not think large monopoly powers in anything will form organically without performing some criminal act to get there. That said, I am not saying it is impossible that a monopoly on force could re-form. I suppose it could happen under unusual circumstances. I could also get struck by lightning three times this week.

Obviously there is a lot to consider here, and more than I can fully address in a short reply. My suggestion if you are truly interested is to take a look at work by individualists. A book that explores the concept of the market as dispersive and also includes a lot of early individualists is Markets Not Capitalism, so that might be a good place to start. This has all been a verbose way of saying that, without a state, I don’t expect a monopoly on defense to form any more than I expect a monopoly on salads to form. Keep in mind, of course, I am answering this question from a largely individualist perspective. If you were to ask a communist this question you would likely get a different answer. Thank you for the great question and I hope you are interested enough to do some reading on this subject.

SONS OF LIBERTY TEES: If you want a rebel flag. Nothing beats the original. Color Flag T-Shirt.


Don’t Tread on Me T-Shirts ~ DTOM Tee Shirts ~ Best T-Shirts on the Web


(Feel free to delete this caption) I made these to make up for all the painful gifsets I made - so many of you have called me the devil, I think I’m growing horns. I need to fix my karma… These are some of the funniest non verbal POI moments. I promised to do them ages ago, if you recall. Most of them are good as reaction gifs. Smile! :)

The famous old story, repeated hundreds of times, that the factories employed women and children and that these women and children, before they were working in factories, had lived under satisfactory conditions, is one of the greatest falsehoods of history. The mothers who worked in the factories had nothing to cook with; they did not leave their homes and their kitchens to go into the factories, they went into factories because they had no kitchens, and if they had a kitchen they had no food to cook in those kitchens. And the children did not come from comfortable nurseries. They were starving and dying. And all the talk about the so-called unspeakable horror of early capitalism can be refuted by a single statistic: precisely in these years in which British capitalism developed, precisely in the age called the Industrial Revolution in England, in the years from 1760 to 1830, precisely in those years the population of England doubled, which means that hundreds or thousands of children—who would have died in preceding times—survived and grew to become men and women. There is no doubt that the conditions of the preceding times were very unsatisfactory. It was capitalist business that improved them. It was precisely those early factories that provided for the needs of their workers, either directly or indirectly by exporting products and importing food and raw materials from other countries. Again and again, the early historians of capitalism have—one can hardly use a milder word—falsified history.
—  Excerpt From: Ludwig von Mises. “Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow.”