FPF #135 – Exploiting Christmas

On FPF #135, I discuss the big news from over the Christmas weekend. Saudi Arabia is increasing airstrikes in Yemen. Saudi airstrikes killed at least 70 civilians on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The US announced, under the cover of Christmas, that the US would begin supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons. I examine the article Scott Ritter released of his analysis of Nikki Haley claim that Iran is supplying missiles to the Houthi. 

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #135 – Exploiting Christmas

Libertarian Night Before Christmas

By Adam Tobias Magoon (twas posted on his Facebook page 7 years ago and he does not recall if he originated this or found it; either way it’s funny and IP is forced negative servitude)

Twas the night before Christmas, and all over the net

Libertarian infighting, as good as it gets.

The young cats and rookies, the intellectual debtors

watch left and right scrum over racist news letters.  
Should anarchists vote? Or is it a crock?

‘Wendy’s a statist!’ Exclaimed Walter Block.

Anarchists, minarchists, a matter of degrees?

You min-mins are fascists! Awaiting kings decrees!  
Atheist, Christian, Muslim or Jew

We don’t fight over faith, like statists do.

We prefer to fight over who should be ruling.

And private vs public vs un-or-homeschooling.  
Taxation is theft, and all war is murder.

Further consensus? Good luck, cat herder.

Even semantics are points for a schism,

Call it free-markets, or capitalism?  
Austria or Chicago? Friedman or Mises?

Is Peikoff the pope, if Ayn Rand is Jesus?

Konkin or Rothbard? What’s on your shelves?

Ah hell, what’s the difference, Ron Paul twenty-twelve!  
So on Hayek and Murray, on Ron and on Ayn.

On Ludwig and Milton! on Bastiat and Heinlein.

Let’s call a truce, friends, for just this one night.

Then on the 26th… libertarians…. FIGHT!

Episode 56 – Scrooged (1:27:46)

We’re going to own Christmas with Mike C. as we talk about the late-80’s Bill Murray Christmas classic, “The Night the Reindeer Died”. Oh wait….no, it’s, “Scrooged“!

Murray Cajun Christmas!

Mike was our guest for our Halloween special on the Night of the Living Dead, and he may have just usurped another holiday!

Episode 47 – Night of the Living Dead (1:10:49)

You can find his music at: https://soundcloud.com/user850128897/sets/stir-the-pot

Father loves Beaver. Yule love it!

Continue reading “Episode 56 – Scrooged (1:27:46)”

The Problems With Santa Claus

Every year on Christmas Eve, children throughout Christendom eagerly await a visit from Santa Claus. Most children are told that he visits the homes of children to place gifts under Christmas trees for good children and bring coal or sticks for bad children. While many parents may believe that this is a harmless “white lie,” there is a case to be made that the myth of Santa Claus is actually very harmful to children. Let us examine the origins of these customs and consider their ill effects. Santa’s Origin The original form of Santa Claus was nothing like his common appearance today, which is largely a product of Thomas Nast’s cartoons (shown above), the poetry of Clement Clark Moore, and Coca-Cola advertisements. The custom of a mythical figure placing presents under a tree dates back to the mother/child cult of Semiramis and Nimrod in ancient Babylon. The mythology says that Nimrod married his mother, setting her up as the “queen of heaven” and himself up as the “divine son of heaven.” The two of them had a son named Tammuz, a god of food and vegetation worshiped in Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, and Babylonia. Upon Nimrod’s death, Semiramis claimed to see an evergreen tree spring up to full size overnight, symbolizing the “new life of Nimrod.” She then taught Tammuz to go into forests and make offerings to his father on the day that is December 25 in the Gregorian calendar (the origin of the date of Christmas), who was now worshiped as the sun god Ba’al, the false god mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament of the Bible. The custom was known to the authors of the book of Jeremiah, which includes the following: “Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Gentiles are dismayed at them. For the customs of the peoples are futile; for one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple. They are upright, like a palm tree, and they cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot go by themselves. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor can they do any good.”[1] The book of Jeremiah is believed to have been written between 627 and 586 BC—six centuries before the time of Jesus—disproving any assertions that the customs surrounding Christmas were an invention of Christians. Nimrod was also known as Santa throughout Asia Minor.[2] Another name for Nimrod used in Greece was Nikolaos. This name is a combination of the Greek words nikos and laos, which together mean “victory over the laity” or “conqueror of common people.” These customs inform certain practices within Christianity, such as the focus on Mary and Jesus together. Thus, the gift-bearing portion of the Santa Claus or Saint Nicholas story is ultimately a manifestation of the ancient cults of Babylon. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com References: Jeremiah 10:2-5 (NKJV) Langer, William L. (1940); Stearns, Peter N. (ed. 2001). The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, chronologically arranged. Houghton Mifflin. p. 37.

The post The Problems With Santa Claus appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – The Problems With Santa Claus

Why I Hate Star Wars

The Death of Nerd Culture | The Death of all Culture

By Kyle Mamounis of www.nutricrinology.com


I don’t actually hate Star Wars, I hate what it’s doing to “nerd culture,” and I see a lot of danger in that.

But first, Star Wars:

I never did like Star Wars. I think it’s because my dad didn’t like Star Wars, so I wasn’t shown the movies as a child. That might be the same reason I never had much interest in sportsball. My first memories of the franchise were some toys and a poster in the room of one of my grade school best friends. The toys sat next to cooler-looking Alien toys.

The poster showed Luke Skywalker with his hands clasped together and a beam shooting upwards and out to the sides. I didn’t know what it was depicting, a light saber, and figured it was something I was familiar with like an energy power similar to something from the X-Men. Princess Leia was to his side, and the aspects of Darth Vader and the Empire loomed dark behind.

Neither the toys nor the poster inspired me to seek out the films.

I finally saw the movies as an early teen, when they were rereleased with digitally remastered sound and enhanced effects. I didn’t get it at all. Even at that age, a story of pure good vs. evil seemed cartoonish in its simplicity.

Wasn’t the job of a writer, at a minimum, to dress up good and evil with metaphor?  In Star Wars, the good guys are called the “light side” and the bad guys are called the “dark side.”

At age 13 or 14, my first thought was that a child of 6 could have written this. In this tale of light and dark, grey pops up here and there in the form of swarthy rogues and disinterested businessmen. The real moral action is all at the extremes.

Walking next to my friend’s dad on our way back to the car, I asked him “what do people like so much about Star Wars?” As a fan and theatergoer of the originals, he would know. His answer was that, back then, the special effects were really something special. It was a kind of grand cinematic experience. The effects, even with digital enhancement, weren’t so special anymore, but it was nostalgic for many.

I always remembered that explanation from a man who was around for the original movies, and unconsciously compare it too the slavering praise given the franchise today by those too young to have been around for Episode I, let alone Episode IV.

The Politics

The politics of Star Wars episodes IV-VI can be summed up like this: political power must be wrested from the hands of Bad People who do Bad Things and given to Good People who will use it for Good Things. That is all there is to know about the politics of Star Wars.

Episodes I-III

Matters progressed. Episodes I-III were roundly condemned as inferior to the originals. They were a grand cinematic event, however, bringing in star (no pun intended) power and top-of-the-line Computer Graphics.

Many people sum up their disappointment in two words: Continue reading “Why I Hate Star Wars”

Tolkien was an Anarchist

By Carl Killough


A man who lived through WWI and understood the power of the state by his wartime experience: J. R. R. Tolkien. His works show a great spectrum of political power structures which span from pure and free to evil and controlling.

Tolkien was an anarchist.

Think about the journey from the Shire to Mordor:

The hobbits live in the freedom of the Shire. They have no formal government and live in anarchy. As they travel east, they witness varying levels of increasing control and corruption.

Rivendell is the perfect platonic republic under the care of the ‘wise rulers’. But it is rigid and constrained by Elrond. Its success depends upon the longevity and nearly incorruptible nature of the elves.

Yet Rivendell is a step down in freedom from the Shire. In spite of the strong will and high character of the elves, it is still Frodo, a hobbit from the completely free Shire who is selected to carry the ring. Even an elf would succumb to its power. If the Ring is state power, then only the most free can hope to survive it’s influence.

Orthanc and Saruman himself show the danger of trusting in a wise leader. When danger threatened from Mordor, Saruman took the easy path of bending to evil. His power was flipped from serving good to spreading corruption and death. When it came down to a choice, he chose power for himself over freedom, and even life, for others.

Rohan is a loose feudal monarchy held together by Theoden. Tolkien shows us the danger of a wise ruler being corrupted by evil through Saruman’s agent, Gríma Wormtongue. The nation nearly falls to the orc invasion because of the corrupting power of Saruman, Sauron and the Ring.

Gondor is a crumbling empire that has finally succumb to its own size and lack of wise leadership. The reigns of power still remain to be abused by the insane Denethor, Steward of Gondor. He becomes so desperate and trapped in his own madness that he refuses to call for aid. When Denethor commits suicide in despair, he almost drags down the people of Gondor with him.

Mordor should be obvious: Full power. Absolute control and absolute evil are equated through Sauron and the One Ring. The orcs march rank and file. There is no light except that of the evil eye upon Barad-dûr, watching to make sure every orc does his duty. It is the ultimate authoritarian state.

The Ring itself is power and control. We are constantly told through the books that it is unable to be wielded without succumbing to its corruption and thus spreading evil even in the attempt to do good. The power of the state is represented through the ring.

Gandalf is an embodiment of good but also an agent of power. Since Gandalf is good, Tolkien shows restraint in the way Gandalf uses his powers. Gandalf only uses his power when forced to do so. But he is stretched thin and cannot put out all the fires caused by the corruption of Sauron’s One Ring. The source of power can only be destroyed by the smallest and most free, a hobbit from the Shire.

Through Gandalf and the Ring Tolkien tells us that power cannot be fought by power. Power itself (the ring) must be destroyed, not through using force, but by letting it go. (Dropping it, releasing it, into the fires of Mt. Doom.) The right to rule must be let go, by not accepting it, and never using it, and thus destroying it.

Continue reading “Tolkien was an Anarchist”

FPF #134 – National Security Strategy with Will Porter

Will Porter returns to Foreign Policy Focus to discuss Trump’s National Security Strategy. In the report, Trump lays out his plan to secure America. Trump calls for lots of interventions around the world. Trump mentions China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran by name as threats to America. Will helps me explain how Trump’s policy is more of the same and it will fail in creating a safer world for Americans. Will also assists is debunking some of the worst lies in the NSS. 

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #134 – National Security Strategy with Will Porter

DMR:  Analyzing the Tax Bill and Trump's National Security Strategy

Picture

Libertarian Shirts Libertarian Country Liberty
There’s some good news and some bad news as we roll into Christmas vacation.

Since I like to end with good news whenever possible, I’ll start with the bad.

Picture

The first topic I wanted to mention is the GOP tax plan. Actually, the news isn’t all bad. For this one, it’s both good and bad–a mixed bag. There are two parts to this: how the plan was constructed and the merits of the plan itself.

The way in which the plan was constructed is one of the universally negative aspects of the bill and is a prime example of how poorly Washington functions.

The bill, whose partial initial purpose was to simplify our tax code, ballooned in a matter of weeks to nearly 500 pages and many hundreds of thousands of words. (So much for simplification, right?) On top of that, it was written entirely by Congressional Republicans. There was no attempt to reach across the aisle. There was no attempt to seek the CBO’s input. In fact, the bill was thrown together so quickly that the CBO didn’t have time to score it, most think tanks didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the entire text, and members of Congress–Republicans–were admitting that they didn’t have time to read much of it.

This is a reform effort that will dramatically impact both our economy and our government’s finances, and it appears to have been done in haste and without much due diligence.

As evidence of this, consider what happened 20 December.

Only after having voted for the bill did the House discover that portions of it violate Senate rules. Now the House will have to vote on it again on 21 December.

Businesses don’t run this way. Most Americans don’t run their lives this way. Our government shouldn’t run this way either.

That said, the bill that emerged actually wasn’t all bad. So what about its merits? First and foremost, it thoroughly overhauled our corporate tax system. It may well be the most significant corporate overhaul ever. Among other things, it reduced the corporate tax rate to 21% and switched the U.S. to a territorial rather than a global tax system.

It created incentives for companies to bring cash back to our country too. This is universally a good thing. Our corporate income tax system was incredibly uncompetitive. Even with these major changes, we’re not even close to the most competitive country out there. We’re in the thick of the pack now though. These changes were long, long overdue. This will promote growth, increase the number of jobs, and could increase investment as well. (That part remains to be seen. There are good arguments both ways.)

There were also substantial changes to the personal income tax system. This is where the both-good-and-bad part starts to come into the equation. There were many changes to the way that our personal income tax system works. For the first few years after the bill’s passage, most Americans will see a very small reduction in their tax bills. That’s where the good part ends though.

Some Americans will actually have their tax burden increased. Even though their income tax rates may fall, the fact that so many deductions are being eliminated means that they may still end up having to pay more than they did before this bill (we’re looking at you Californians). Even for those Americans who do experience a reduction, it is likely to be relatively small. After around 2020, almost half of Americans could actually be paying more in taxes than they would have under the “old” system. Unfortunately, the half of Americans who are having their tax burden increased are the half who earn the smaller amount of income. Those who earn more will get to keep their reduced burden for longer.

By 2025, almost all of the personal income tax changes will then expire. That’s right: The personal income tax deductions were not made permanent. They are temporary. This means that whether the personal income tax changes were a good or a bad thing isn’t immediately obvious. Clearly most Americans would agree that having more money–even in one year–is good for them. There’s quite a bit of evidence, however, that temporary tax cuts have very little impact on the economy, can create imbalances and even bubbles, and can even harm Americans who plan their budgets around their new tax rates only to find them shoot up again shortly thereafter.

I believe that politicians at that time will just extend the tax cuts permanently (they are seeking reelection, after all).  This will throw off all of the accounting tricks that make this bill ONLY cost an additional $1Trillion in debt…  It will then cost more.

On the whole, the bill makes a large number of necessary, long overdue changes. I can’t shake the feeling that this was also an enormous missed opportunity though. The original goal of simplifying the tax code wasn’t met. Both the corporate and individual codes remain as long and as complicated as they’ve ever been. On top of that, as I said, many of the bill’s provisions are temporary anyway.

This brings me to my last point and the one point that is unquestionably bad: Why are those provisions temporary? The short answer: They almost certainly had to be. This last point is my primary concern with the bill and is the only true reason that I question the wisdom of the bill as it is currently written. (There are ways to reform our tax code without piling trillions of dollars in additional debt onto our backs.)

The previous sentence is the point: This bill adds a tremendous amount of new debt to our government. At an absolute minimum, it will add an additional nearly $500 billion to our national debt (according to The Tax Foundation). Most other analysis puts that total closer to $1 trillion or even $1.5 trillion. Bear in mind that that is debt above and beyond what we’d have already accumulated. We’ll still be accumulating the “other” debt too.

Republicans are now up against a harsh reality. They’ve campaigned for years on cutting the tax burden. For years–decades even–our government had a small enough debt load that we could easily have done this without significant adverse impact. The cold, hard reality now though is that we have such an enormous debt load (105% of GDP) that we’re actually quite constrained in how much–and for how long–we can reduce people’s tax burdens without causing government solvency problems.

Thus, Republicans opted to have most of this tax bill’s changes expire in less than a decade in order to slow the accumulation of debt.

CoinBase Buy Sell Bitcoins Free BitCoin

FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you’ll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
This is why Republicans have actually added more to the national debt than Democrats have. We want to increase military spending, increase infrastructure spending, and keep welfare spending the same (apparently) but reduce the government’s revenue. If that’s what you plan to do, then there’s only one way to fund it: more debt. In other words, young people today and people yet to be born are having their futures mortgaged.  This is IMMORAL, even if it means we save 4% on our tax bills, personally.

After all of this new debt is accumulated, what will happen? Well, our rates will go right back up again. We’ll be back where we started, only with a lot more debt. What, then, did we really accomplish for individuals? In all likelihood, we’ve hurt them over the long term for one reason. Mark my words: Our debt load is so large and growing so quickly, that bickering over the temporary nature of tax cuts will one day seem to be a luxury. Unless we get our fiscal house in order, we are only borrowing from people’s futures. A day is coming when our tax rates will have to be RAISED in order to keep our government solvent. Eventually our debt will impose realities like that. This is what we are setting ourselves up for.

The Republicans like to think that their tax cuts generate enough new growth to pay for themselves. The reality, of course, is that they don’t. Even the most politically conservative analysis supports me on this.

They do cause some additional growth, but they don’t cause enough to fully pay for cuts, and they never have. Not a single tax cut package has ever fully paid for itself with new growth. That’s why you must cut spending. Cutting spending is how you make the equation balance. We tell ourselves that our tax cuts mean that we don’t have to cut spending because the lower tax rates will generate enough new growth to pay for themselves. This is only a psychological need: We tell ourselves this so that we feel better about the long-term problems we know that our debt accumulation will cause. We want to believe it. The problem is that it simply isn’t true. (On a side note, we’re likely to experience even less growth from this tax bill now than we would have a couple of decades ago when we first started talking about it because our labor force is now shrinking. Regardless of tax rates, there’s only so much new growth that can be generated from a shrinking labor force. We don’t have enough babies and now also discourage immigration. There isn’t a third way to grow a population or a labor force over the long term.)

Picture

Anyway, I said that I’d end on a positive note, and I will. The new national security strategy that Trump announced yesterday is tremendous. It places additional emphasis on jihadist networks, as well it should. It shines a spotlight evermore directly at North Korea, as well it should.

The most important aspect is this though: It labeled China a “strategic competitor.” You can bet that that is absolutely true. China is not a friend of the United States or of the global trade and sovereignty rules whereby the U.S.-led system operates. China sees themselves very much in competition with the U.S., and it’s time we stepped up to the plate. China plays on a market field that has no foul lines. It’s time for us to level that playing field.

While many Americans are complaining about Mexico’s impact on our economy (which, contrary to much of what is shared on Facebook, actually provides an enormous boost to our economy), China steals our long-term prosperity. When it comes to engaging with the rest of the world, China looks out for China first. Thus, when it comes to engaging China, we should look out for ourselves first.

Sometimes diplomacy is called for, but most of the time you need to call something what it is. The era of holding China’s hand and pretending that they’re are our friend must end. China is a competitor that plays by its own rules at the expense of Americans’ economic interests, and it’s time for us to meet that challenge head on.

I applaud Trump for making this change. It’s time. Let’s gear up and fight for our long-term economic wellbeing.

Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn’t cost you a penny more at checkout!
Picture

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

View RSS feed


Source: Liberty LOL – DMR:  Analyzing the Tax Bill and Trump's National Security Strategy

Friedman vs. Rothbard. Seriously. Why do libertarians fight over this? (Episode 61)

Since I became a part of the libertarian community, one thing that’s annoyed me is the near-vitriol that libertarians (who might follow someone like Mises or Rothbard) have for those who follow the Chicago School of economics and, in particular, its main figurehead, Milton Friedman.

Now, I concede that given the choice, I prefer Rothbard over Friedman and the Austrian School over the Chicago School. However, it’s always puzzled me the way Rothbardians attack Friedmanites with such vigor and malice. Of course we disagree with some fundamentals that differentiated Friedman from Rothbard, but geez o’Pete… would any Rothbardian not take the opportunity to live in a Milton Friedman-esque economy if that was the only choice vs. the crony capitalistic system we have now?

Really, why do we treat Chicago School followers as the enemy when there are more things we have in common than on which we differ? Why deny the positive impact Friedman had on waking up people to the blessings of the free market?

We discuss.

Friedman Vs Rothbard

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

Links related to this episode:

The Chicago School versus the Austrian School

Milton Friedman – Socialism vs. Capitalism

Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won’t work

Murray Rothbard on Private Roads

The Myth of the Free Market Cartel | by Murray N. Rothbard

 

The post Friedman vs. Rothbard. Seriously. Why do libertarians fight over this? (Episode 61) appeared first on Libertarianism for Normal People.

Source: Libertarianism for Normal People – Friedman vs. Rothbard. Seriously. Why do libertarians fight over this? (Episode 61)