PC Culture in Comedy – ABS030

Hey Guys! In this episode, we discuss PC culture in comedy. But first, make sure to check out our Facebook page which just received it’s 500th like! Our Patreon campaign is in full swing, featuring Super duper secret patron only episodes, live streams, the credit of “Executive Producer of The Ancap Barber Shop” and much, much more… You can find our Patreon at patreon.com/ancapbarbershop. Also a huge thank you to Drake Lundstrom for being our very first patron! Don’t forget we love to hear from you guys so send us an email at feedback@ancapbarbershop.com. Tell us if there are any Patreon perks you’d like us to incorporate, send us an anonymous love letter or give us hell for something we fucked up!   In the news segment of this episode, Scott talks about his diet for the first time in a while (he’s been actively getting fat for a few months). He’s put on about 20 pounds since his initial weight loss of approximately 50 pounds. Below is what he is currently doing:   “-Daily while fasting: Water, black coffee, unsweet tea   -Daily while eating: Chicken, broccoli, veggies, eggs, cheese Whey protein, almond milk, nuts (Lazy keto)       diet soda in moderation (fuck the haters)   -Restrictions: Sugar, grains, fruits, breads, processed foods, Excess fatty foods, excess carbs    -Weekly:   Meal at a sit down restaurant (No fast food or grubsouth) N/A beer limit six   Try to get 2 strenuous bike rides in every week While riding hard some fruit/granola is ok”   Tanner has the opposite problem, he has to monitor what he eats or we will get underweight, lucky POS!   During the main segment, we discuss the validity of PC culture in comedy. Mel Brooks has this to say:    “I personally would never touch gas chambers or the death of children or Jews at the hands of the Nazis,”    “Everything else is ok.” What do you think? Is there a line that comedians and filmmakers should not cross for a chuckle?  Feel free to check out the article from tonight’s episode here. Worms Y’all! 
Source: The AnCap Barbershop – PC Culture in Comedy – ABS030

In the Madhouse 11th of December – Utterly sickening

The main problem with trying to follow the news and keep track of the most atrocious things is that the news is inherently depressing. Recently I read something that I rather wish I hadn’t, it is material shared from the interrogation of the victim of a gangrape where 20 men where involved. The rape took place in the stairwell of an apartment complex and during the rape other inhabitants of the building passed by and did not even bother calling the police (they justified it afterward when they were interrogated by saying that after living in the area they have learned to look the other way). After the rape, the woman had to get to a police station by herself because the locals she encountered though she was “gross” and told her to go away.

This story is so sickening that my mind just recoils, the horror of it on every level is just beyond comprehension. What kind of environment has been created if 20 people in an area take part in a gang rape while the neighbors look the other way? It is like the atrocities one hear about from the end of world war 2. This kind of thing should simply not be happening in any civilized society.

If anyone wants to read more about this crime you can click on the link at the bottom of this blog post and run it through googled translate (warning for graphic language).

This isn’t an isolated crime, we have recently had cases such as gang rape of a wheelchair-bound women. Gang rape is sadly becoming a thing here. Instead of writing more about these sickening crimes I want to entertain another thought, what should be done to the scum of the earth like the people mentioned above? In Sweden, rapists get off the hook disturbingly easily, 2-3 years in prison and that is it. Swedish prisons are not anything like hardcore American prisons either, by all accounts spending time in a Swedish prison sounds like an extended hotel stay with limited freedom. Can one even think of a worse insult to the victim than the idea that her tax money will go to paying her perpetrators an extended cozy prison visit after which the criminals will be let loose into society (likely quicker than if they had been tax evades or doing illegal file sharing)? It is absurd and such a perversion of the concept of justice.

Looking back in history can be enlightening. Back before there where tax funded resorts called prisons people had to deal with unforgivable crime in another way. Chopping someone’s head off or tying a rope to a tall tree was always an option, but the less severe alternative was rendering criminals lawless. Simply put if someone, by their actions, demonstrated that they have no inclination to be a productive part of society then they were declared lawless. It meant they were no longer protected by the law, anyone could kill, beat or rob a lawless person without fearing retribution from the law. Relatives of a murder victim could find the offender and take justice into their own hands.

In practice, the lawless person had to flee and never return or face death. On Iceland, for instance, they escaped into the inhospitable and harsh highlands of the island. In Sweden, I guess they escaped into the endless forests. A modern alternative would be to buy an island no one cares about, preferably one where it is hard as hell to survive and tell lawless people that they have x hours to get to the island where they will spend the rest of their lives, if they are found anywhere else they die. End of story.

 

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.11’; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

VARNING FÖR OBEHAGLIG MEN VIKTIG LÄSNINGImorgon fortsätter rättegången mot de män som står åtalade för att ha vå…

Posted by Joakim Lamotte on Monday, November 27, 2017

Source: In the Madhou.se – In the Madhouse 11th of December – Utterly sickening

Venezuelan President attacks LA Philharmonic conductor

While Venezuela has been the focus of attention recently due to its political turmoil and dire shortages of basic necessities, this has not stopped President Nicolas Maduro from turning his attention towards one of the world’s best-known Venezuelans for not toeing the line.

Gustavo Dudamel is the conductor for the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the Simón Bolivar Symphony Orchestra. Originally created as a youth orchestra, the SBSO is the centerpiece of Venezuela’s “El Sistema” of state-sponsored youth orchestras. Dudamel forged his career through the system, which former president Hugo Chavez strongly supported during his tenure.

Dudamel has found himself in a delicate position between arts and politics for several years. In 2014, he was strongly criticized for making a high profile appearance in Caracas on February 12th, the same day “that violent clashes between protesters and police in the country left three dead”:

Initially, reports had circulated on social media that Dudamel had been conducting a performance in Maracay with president Nicolas Maduro in attendance. The conductor has denied that vehemently, however, pointing out that he was in the country’s capital city leading an orchestra of young musicians from his home town of Barquisimeto in celebration of El Sistema’s foundation 39 years ago.

This incident led Venezuelan pianist Gabriela Montero to write an open letter to Dudamel and José Abreu, founder of El Sistema, pleading that they should use their public status to speak out against government policy:

Writing an open letter to Dudamel and Abréu on Facebook, [Montero] says that ‘the time has come in which the artists with the most prominent voices can no longer quietly accept the theft and destruction of our nation by the corrupted manifestation of a political ideology, for fear of biting the hand that feeds them. Our democracy has collapsed, and with it our dignity.’

Addressing Dudamel in person, Montero says that he is ‘right to focus your unique creative energy on the beautiful flower of music and youth, and nobody can deny that you have brought joy and rejuvenation to classical music nationally and internationally. I would be the first to congratulate you for it, but you are simply wrong to ignore the toxic oasis in which that flower stands alone, and on the brink of withering and dying, subsumed as it will be by the stench that surrounds it.’

Following the criticism, Dudamel, who has both enjoyed a long friendship with Montero and shared the concert stage with her on a number of occasions, released a statement. ‘What our National Network of Youth and Children’s Orchestras of Venezuela represents are the values of Peace, Love and Unity,’ it read. ‘February 12 is a special day because it was the day that a project was born that has become the emblem and flag of our country to the world. Therefore, we commemorate all youth, we commemorate the future, we commemorate brotherhood. Our music represents the universal language of peace; therefore, we lament yesterday’s events. With our music, and with our instruments in hand, we declare an absolute no to violence and an resounding yes to peace.’

Perhaps it’s no surprise for an artist, who may know Pachelbel but not praxeology, to hide behind high-falootin’ gobbledygook so he can focus on his art.

However, as much as Dudamel wanted to avoid politics, politics had no desire of avoiding him.

In May, Dudamel spoke out against the Maduro government after a member of El Sistema died in street protests that killed more than 120.  In August, he was involved in successful negotiations with National guard forces to release Wuilly Arteaga (pictured above), a Venezuelan violinist that had been detained in July. Arteaga had gained a following on social media for playing music in the middle of violent street protests against Maduro.

Apparently Dudamo’s recent involvement was too much for Maduro to take.

“I hope God forgives you,” Maduro reportedly said, criticizing Dudamel for spending time in Madrid and Los Angeles while a political and economic crisis deepens in his homeland.

“Welcome to politics, Gustavo Dudamel. But act with ethics, and don’t let yourself be deceived into attacking the architects of this beautiful movement of young boys and girls.”

(Nice orchestra you’ve got there. ‘Shame if anything were to happen to it.)

Dudamel’s remarks and involvement in Arteaga’s release appears to have been enough for the Venezuelan government to cancel the SBSO’s tours of the United States and Asia.  BBC Music Magazine reports in its October 2017 issue that “Dudamel’s continued involvement with the SBSO is now believed to be in doubt.”

The post Venezuelan President attacks LA Philharmonic conductor appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Venezuelan President attacks LA Philharmonic conductor

FPF #124 – North Korea Tests New Missile

On FPF #124, I discuss North Korea’s recent missile test and events around Africa. I give the details and some analysis of Nort Korea’s missile test. I also discuss the reaction from world leaders. I examine the situation In Zimbabwe, a new president has been sworn in after the coup. I look at a new Kenyan president being sworn in. I also update Egypt’s Saini massacreMarcon’s trip to West Africa and Nigeria. 

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #124 – North Korea Tests New Missile

Liberation Library [3] The Truth About Judicial Review

In some circles, it has been claimed that Chief Justice John Marshall unjustly seized the power of Judicial Review and apportioned it to the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, the truth is more complicated and is detailed in the contents of another great work penned by William J. Watkins, Jr.

There is much more to be said about this issue, and it truly deserves a few full episodes. To get the whole scoop, read the article here: Popular Sovereignty, Judicial Supremacy, and the American Revolution: Why the Judiciary Cannot Be the Final Arbiter of Constitutions

Liberation Library is brought to you by:

Our new Murray Rothbard “Enemy of the State” polygon line of merchandise! 15% OFF w/ Promo code: ROTHBARD

Our Liberty Classroom Affiliate Link

The Liberty Weekly Patreon Page: help support the show and gain access to tons of bonus content! Become a patron today!

Become a Patron!

The post Liberation Library [3] The Truth About Judicial Review appeared first on Liberty Weekly.

Source: Liberty Weekly – Liberation Library [3] The Truth About Judicial Review

How To Argue Against Modern Anti-Capitalism

By Insula Qui Socialism is dead. This can be contended and debated, but I would assert that socialism as a pure doctrine has been defeated. The original form of socialism is barely, if at all, relevant to modern politics or economics. Almost no one goes against markets, money, property, or economic liberty on principle in the 21st century. Socialist policy has thus become a matter of pragmatism and not philosophy. One may argue that any degree of statism is socialism, but socialism as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries is no longer a threat in the Western world. Almost no person wants a command economy and no one says that the price system should be completely replaced by central planning. Only the most fringe radicals say that there should be no property and that the proletariat should have free access to capital and consumer goods. The socialism that Mises described and the socialism that the early libertarian movement viciously attacked has long since disappeared from the common political sphere. There are still radicals who are true socialists, but even most self-described socialists have adopted positions that are in opposition to state socialism and planned command economies. The usefulness of the market in deciding the allocation of goods is almost universally recognized and economics no longer has a large current of pure socialism running through it. The closest school of thought in mainstream economics to actual socialism is post-Keynesianism, which is still quasi-capitalist. Although there are still a few socialist experiments, only Cuba and North Korea manage to remain truly and properly communist. One could argue that North Korea is just as fascist as communist, and that some other small states like Laos still retain communism. But when one looks at official state ideologies and their practice, these are the two most communist states. The Western world has fully embraced economic liberalism, although liberalism now has an inherent focus on welfarism alongside economic freedom. By using welfare, workplace democracy, or other methods that preserve the market system, the modern anti-capitalist tries to create what they call a mixed economy. This mixed economy is supposed to be a combination of socialism and capitalism, but in reality it is trying to achieve the moral goals of socialism while still retaining the benefits of a capitalist economy. Trying to create this balance between socialism and capitalism results in a system that is still fundamentally capitalist. However, this capitalist system is restricted and encumbered by various reforms and privileges granted to favored groups. Modern anti-capitalism is no longer anti-capitalist, but simply capitalism with additional fetters. The Nordic countries are the only Western countries that socialists can point to, and they have relatively laissez-faire principles outside of the welfare state. And even the Nordic welfare states were previously balanced by the relatively high trust and high quality populations. This may be related to eugenics or other factors that make these countries different. The success of these countries is certainly despite the massive social democracies that they have in place. The only arguments that are being had concern the degree to which capitalism ought to be allowed to operate before it is restricted. The conflict is really about how capitalism ought to be improved and not whether to transform the economy into a socialist one. People who continue to call themselves socialists are far removed from what socialists used to be. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com

The post How To Argue Against Modern Anti-Capitalism appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – How To Argue Against Modern Anti-Capitalism

Book review: How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America, by Brion McClanahan

Alexander HamiltonAs entertaining as Lin-Manual Miranda’s Hamilton is, an unfortunate side effect has been American youngsters idolizing a man that has done an immense amount of damage to the American legal and political system. While Brion McClanahan’s new book How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America isn’t going to compete in popularity with the Broadway musical’s hip-hop songbook, it is a welcome remedy that clearly articulates Hamilton’s impact on American government.

McClanahan discusses the impact Hamiltonianism had on American politics through four key figures in American history: Hamilton himself, John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Hugo Black. Of course, Hamilton is the key figure in this narrative; McClanahan demonstrates him as the key mover behind American nationalism. John Marshall, as the first chief of the U.S. Supreme Court, uses Hamiltonian arguments to further the nationalist cause. Joseph Story, although a Supreme Court justice, solidifies the nationalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution primarily through publishing a three-volume treatise on the document. Finally, Hugo Black, as a Supreme Court Justice in the 1960s, finalized the dominance of nationalist Constitutional though through a series of rulings that applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the activities of the states.

Throughout the book, McClanahan shows that these men had two things in common: they each sought to establish and maintain a national government, inconsistent with how the U.S. Constitution was structured and presented to state legislatures at the time of its adoption, and they were duplicitous in how they carried out their work.

The tone of the book is established right from the beginning. McClanahan pulls no punches when discussing Hamilton’s tactics while the Constitution was being designed, debated, and ratified:

Hamilton spoke out of both sides of his mouth. Put simply, he often lied, particularly when it came to defending federal power. Hamilton would craft a narrative of constitutional authority that would fit his agenda, but that narrative was often at odds with the story he spun when the Constitution was in the process of ratification. In 1787 and 1788, Hamilton sang a tune of federal restraint and limited central authority. When backed into a corner by Jefferson or James Madison after the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton would often backtrack and advance positions he favored during the Philadelphia Convention, namely for a supreme central authority with virtually unlimited power, particularly for the executive branch. This Hamilton was the real Hamilton, but the real Hamilton would never have been in a position to direct the future of the United States had he not been part of a disingenuous sales pitch to the states while the Constitution was being debated and ratified.

McClanahan is at his best when he supported well-constructed arguments by referring to a wide variety of original sources. Simply put, he knows his original sources. He uses them, and the arguments he articulates, in a nuanced and comprehensive manner.

In short, this is an excellent book that demonstrates how Alexander Hamilton and his fellow travelers throughout history moved American politics away from the decentralized general government, as articulated and originally understood in the Constitution, towards a national government. Lovers of American history, and American culture, would do well to read this brief yet powerful book.

 

The post Book review: How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America, by Brion McClanahan appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Book review: How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America, by Brion McClanahan

FPF #123 -Unmasking NYT's Cover-up of Crimes

On FPF #123, I smackdown two articles published in the New York Times. The first article I take on is Thomas Freidman’s love letter to MBS. I explain how Freidman is so enchanted by MBS he ignores MBS’s crimes. The second article examines if anyone is committing war crimes in Yemen. In this article, the NYT hides Saudi and US war crimes in Yemen. 

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #123 -Unmasking NYT's Cover-up of Crimes

Does Libertarianism Make Sense without God? (Episode 60)

does libertarianism make sense without god?

When we’re bored, Pat and I talk about video games, the golden age of pro wrestling, and of course, the existence of a supernatural overlord that rules us all and if his edicts are compatible with libertarianism.

But then, who doesn’t, right?

If you’re looking for a little light listening, you’ll probably enjoy our latest discussion in which we settle the big questions of the universe once and for all!

Does Libertarianism Make Sense Without God?

Or, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.

– Pat and Jon

The post Does Libertarianism Make Sense without God? (Episode 60) appeared first on Libertarianism for Normal People.

Source: Libertarianism for Normal People – Does Libertarianism Make Sense without God? (Episode 60)

The Economist: The case for taxing death

Death tax

This author has a love-hate relationship with The Economist. I love to hate it.

My dissatisfaction with it rests primarily on its hiding behind the moniker of being a conservative, free market magazine while advocating for the worst statist positions possible. With a straight face, and far too many words, they persistently push for central banking, neocon foreign policies, and policies designed to “confront” global warming.

The latest example of its chicanery is its latest cover story, which makes a case for the estate tax.

The magazine claims that the estate tax pits “two vital liberal principles against each other.”

One is that governments should leave people to dispose of their wealth as they see fit. The other is that a permanent, hereditary elite makes a society unhealthy and unfair. How to choose between them?

The Economist creates a false sense of tension through its selection of these principles. The second one presumes that a permanent elite can arise in a society without the help of the state. However, the only way a permanent ruling class can arise is through the state.

To paraphrase Murray Rothbard and Franz Oppenheimer, there are two ways of acquiring wealth: by selling products and services through the free market, or by stealing other people’s stuff. A free market won’t allow a permanent elite to exist, unless that elite constantly provides value through providing goods and services to people across generations. That is highly unlikely.

However, the state is essentially a framework through which stealing other people’s stuff is legitimized and made permanent. The only way an elite can be made permanent, let alone hereditary, is if a state is set up in such a way that allows for the designated elite to remain.

One would think that a publication located in Great Britain – which, after all, has a monarchy and used to have an active aristocracy – would appreciate this simple fact.

The rest of the article works through the exercise of resolving the supposed tension between the above two principles. In the end, the magazine argues that the estate tax should remain, primarily because it is the “least distorting” of taxes.

Unlike income taxes, they do not destroy the incentive to work—whereas research suggests that a single person who inherits an amount above $150,000 is four times more likely to leave the labour force than one who inherits less than $25,000. Unlike capital-gains taxes, heavier estate taxes do not seem to dissuade saving or investment. Unlike sales taxes, they are progressive. To the extent that a higher inheritance tax can fund cuts to all other taxes, the system can be more efficient.

However, Hans Sennholz argues in “The Envy Tax” that none of these arguments hold water.

Death duties are no painless levies, as the taxmen want us to believe; they actually affect the conditions and actions of three parties: wealthy owners, their heirs, and the public. Owners who created the wealth usually are aware of the confiscatory nature of their future estate levies and therefore may adjust their life styles while they are still alive. They may seek early retirement in leisure and play, enjoy their wealth, or give it away. Wealthy retirees support the fastest growth industry of our time, housing and entertainment of a large leisure class congregating in affluent retirement communities. Or they may redirect their talents and efforts toward estate tax avoidance or evasion in order to leave more wealth to the family.

The loss of capital is compounded by an army of tax accountants and attorneys who thrive on the administration and distribution of estates. The indirect costs of estate taxation often decimate productive capital as effectively as the death duties themselves. Billions of dollars are spent every year for devising and administering trusts and foundations which, loaded with tax attorneys and accountants, wage expensive battles with their counterparts in government, all frittering away productive capital. Many billions of dollars are sent abroad in search of reliable tax havens.

Death duties do not visibly destroy capital goods such as factories, oil wells, refineries, or stores; but the heirs may be forced to sell all or part of the estate in order to raise the cash needed for the tax payment. The cash consists of someone’s savings which will never build a factory or store, never drill an oil well, never manufacture a tool or die. They merely replace the capital consumed by government. When the death duties fall on a large private enterprise, many stockholders may take the place of the family paying the duties. Their investments are simple replacements of productive capital lost. The media may then speak of the “passing of an era.”

While The Economist recognizes that the estate tax forces heirs to sell business, farms, and homes to pay the tax, it pretends to come up with the practical suggestion that heirs should be allowed “to pay the duties gradually, from cashflow rather than by fire-sales.”

Because after all, what matters to The Economist is that government gets the revenue it deserves.

The magazine closes its attempt to have a “sensible discussion” on the issue by articulating three “design principles” behind an appropriate estate tax: target the wealthy, keep it simple, and reduce other taxes.

The Economist‘s last principle is the most ridiculous. Government are rarely inclined to reduce taxes while putting new taxes in place.

Rather than focusing on how a tax that shouldn’t exist be designed, I have an even better idea.

How about if governments stop getting involved in monetary policy, stay out of the affairs of other countries (and the affairs of its constituents, I might add), and protect property rights?

While this wouldn’t be anarcho-capitalism by any stretch of the imagination, these moves would lead to far smaller governments, thereby reducing the amount of taxpayer money needed, cutting the number of parasitical elites that would live off of government largesse, and eliminating the need for a death tax.

Your welcome, Economist.

I solved your problem for you.

 

The post The Economist: The case for taxing death appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – The Economist: The case for taxing death