The Founding Fathers...

Were often just as catty as any of the Real Housewives. They insulted and belittled each other constantly. Say what you will about polarization, but at least most politicians these days aren’t regularly accusing one another of sedition. We love to quote the founders but rarely do we recall John Adams accusing Alexander Hamilton of being “a creole bastard” who was colluding with the British. Honestly, the more you learn about the founders, the less impressive they seem.

Why you should vote for Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is currently the longest-serving independent in Congress (16 years as a representative and the past 8 as a senator), with his past election winning 71% of the vote.

Many who like him point to his character:

  • He speaks very plainly, does not shy away from answering questions directly and avoids the ultra-careful vague-talk of many other candidates (see this interview as an example.)
  • He does not run attack ads
  • He refuses to fund his campaign with Super PACs

Others support him for his stance on issues (many follow Bernie because they found him to align with their views closer than any other candidate using - take the quiz and see for yourself):

  • He wants to help get money out of politics (by overturning Citizens United, make campaign donations more transparent)
  • Work to end our contribution to climate change (with carbon taxes, stopping the keystone XL pipeline, and shifting the country to more solar energy sources)
  • Lessen income and wealth inequality (with higher taxes on the wealthy)
  • Make a higher education more affordable (see his current attempt at this in congress)
  • Free universal access to quality healthcare (move the US to a single-payer system)
  • Make it mandatory for employers to offer paid sick and family leave (the US is the only developed country that does not guarantee paid maternity leave)

To keep this brief, I’ll stop here, though there is much more to him than this (I encourage you to look into why the Military Officers Association of America awarded him with a Congressional Leadership Award, or why labor unions have supported his campaign so much.) If you want to learn more, check out his wiki or campaign pages and compare where he gets his campaign financed from with other candidates using opensecrets. Support Sanders for president, 2016.

“Protecting an individual’s property in her self and her positions allows her to control her own life – to make choices and plans and to take action safe in the knowledge that, as far as her own belongings are concerned, she alone has ultimate jurisdiction.”

For more:
How to Outsource Your Compassion to the Government
Millions of people have trouble earning a living. Isn't it perverse to burden those who are doing the most to alleviate the problem?
Robert P. Murphy tarafından

I saw the mom and her two little kids camped out in the shopping center parking lot. She held a sign asking for help to feed them. I bought some oranges and bananas for them.

Imagine if someone from the government had swooped in to explain that my bag of fruit was hardly sufficient to feed the struggling family. What if the government then passed a law saying that if anybody decided to donate food (or cash) to people begging on the street or in a parking lot, the contribution had to be worth at least $15? Anybody caught giving, say, a $1 bill or a small bag of fruit would be fined heavily. Does that sound like “pro-homeless” legislation?

Try a different example: there are civic and church groups who will pick a weekend to go to a specific elderly widow’s house and help her put on a fresh coat of paint, clean up the yard, restock the pantry, and so on. Such one-off bursts of assistance obviously can’t fill the void for someone without an extended family or a generous pension. Shouldn’t the government pass legislation insisting that if you are going to donate time and goods to an elderly widow, you must do so in a way that allows her to live comfortably? Isn’t that a great “pro-widow” method for raising the living standards of the target demographic?

Or consider families who adopt children from war-torn regions. These actions, though seemingly noble, are clearly a drop in the bucket, with hundreds of thousands of orphans left behind. What if the government passed a law saying that US families were only allowed to adopt foreign children if they did so at least 15 kids at a time? Would activists agree that such a “pro-adoption” measure would increase the number of adoptions and be an unmitigated boon for foreign orphans?

Currently there are people who volunteer to teach adults how to read. But adult illiteracy is still a vexing problem in certain communities, so clearly these volunteer efforts have been inadequate to overcome the challenge. The obvious, pro-literacy way to fix things is to pass a law saying volunteers must give at least 15 hours of tutoring per week. If they are caught only teaching adults how to read for, say, 14 hours, then the volunteers will be heavily fined.

I’ll offer one final example. There are millions of people in the United States who do not have very marketable skills. There are a few thousand people who are willing to give them jobs. Wouldn’t it be a great benefit to these unskilled workers to pass a law saying that if you want to hire any of them, then you must pay at least $15 per hour of their labor? (If you get caught only paying, say, $14 per hour, then you get heavily fined.) What could possibly be a downside to such “pro-labor” legislation?

At this point, you surely recognize that I am being facetious. I am highlighting the absurdity of minimum wage legislation as an alleged “pro-labor” device. First and most obvious, by raising the hurdle to giving a job to unskilled workers, minimum wage legislation might perversely reduceemployment among the very groups the government is supposedly helping.

The minimum wage is a perverse tool with which to (allegedly) help unskilled workers.

This textbook claim about the danger of minimum wage laws is repeated by free-market economists so often that people have been lulled into complacency, especially in light of econometric studies that seem to show that minimum wage hikes do not have disastrous effects on employment. Yet, there is a strong prima facie case against the minimum wage in the analogous examples. Would advocates for the homeless, widows, adult illiterates, and other disadvantaged groups be so confident in the other hypothetical legislation I described above?

I designed my hypothetical examples to underscore another perversity in minimum wage legislation — and, more generally, all mandates placed on employers: it attacks the benefactors of the unskilled. Consider: there are millions of people who have trouble earning a living. Isn’t it perverse to burden those specific people who are doing the most to alleviate the problem? This is analogous to singling out volunteers doing at least something to battle adult illiteracy, making them bear the brunt of further efforts on this score, while allowing the rest of society to continue doing nothing to mitigate the problem.

To be sure, as both an Austrian economist and a libertarian, I consider it neither appropriate nor ethical for state officials to interfere with property rights in order to help unskilled workers. But if the government is going to “do something,” then it is particularly perverse to lay down the burden exclusively on the people who are already giving some money to unskilled workers. A more sensible approach would, say, give government subsidies to workers who were earning a bona fide paycheck in the market, or (better yet) would give targeted tax breaks to the unskilled workers that the government wanted to assist. Incidentally, this type of reasoning is why many economists — even progressives — are pushing the earned income tax credit as a much more efficient way to help poor workers than minimum wage mandates.

The minimum wage is a perverse tool with which to (allegedly) help unskilled workers. At best, it helps some unskilled workers while drastically hurting others — by making it impossible for them to find work at all. Beyond that, minimum wage legislation perversely places the entire (direct) burden of helping such workers on their employers, the one (tiny) group of people who are actually helping them solve the problem. The rest of society, which has done nothing whatsoever to help the unskilled workers have a higher standard of living, can pat themselves on the back for voting for certain politicians while continuing to do nothing whatsoever to help those who want to work.
Alert Alert Alert...Nukes Go Missing Along With $8.5 Trillion Dollars While We're Being Distracted Worrying About Confederate Flags!!! ~ Consciously Enlightened
*****This is not an attempt to fear monger. This is a legitimate ALERT***** This is a Resistance Journals exclusive, in-depth report and video which details why we have been inundated with distraction over the past month. I also explain eerie similarities to events in the past, and outline why we … More...

You decide for yourself……

In the case of gay rights, consumers need to know who supports inclusion and who supports exclusion. Shutting down that information flow through anti-discrimination law robs people of crucial data to make intelligent buying decisions. Moreover, such laws remove the competitive pressure of businesses to prove (and improve) their commitment to community values, because all businesses are ostensibly bound by them.

A market that permits discrimination, even of the invidious sort, allows money and therefore success and profits to be directed toward those who think broadly, while denying money and profitability to those who do not. In this way, a free market nudges society toward ever more tolerant and inclusive attitudes. Money speaks far more persuasively than laws.


Everyone Needs Freedom to Discriminate - Jeffrey Tucker -

Yes yes yes! I was discussing this with some friends the other day. We are not in the Civil Rights era when government itself mandated heinous discrimination through Jim Crow laws. We cannot compare this time to that time. We as LGBT people have infinitely more choices than did people of color back then. We have the power to vote with our money and to spread the word to our friends and families when we encounter discrimination. There is no need to trample anyone’s right to associate or speak or use their property as they see fit.

Freedom of Speech = Freedom of Lies?

American people got used to think that the government doesn’t actually represent them. It took about a half of a century – Vietnam War was the first event which disturbed people’s trust to government. The results of the 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey shows that only 24% of adult Americans think that news media are free of bias. 70% of polled probably just understand the truth. I’m sure, a lot of journalists wants to report the true news, but who will pay them for this? Not the government.

There is no I in ISIS. It is neither me, Islamic.

In light of recent attacks, and the ongoing barbaric inhumane behaviour of the terrorist group ISIS, I felt it was necessary to express my condemnation.

This is a poem I performed in January 2015, at a Poets for Peace event. Search us on YouTube to find other poets for peace.

Peace love and blessings.