Ep. 25 – So On & So Forth w/Cousin Carmine 4: NJ Gov. Phil Murphy to Usher in Progressive Era

itunes pic

Cousin Carmine is back with Jeff and Tony to discuss NJ’s new Governor, Phil Murphy, who was inaugurated on January 16, 2018. Murphy brings his 23 years of “experience” working for Goldman Sachs, and a stint as Ambassador to Germany during Obama’s presidency (Obama gave Murphy lots of juice when he supported his campaign against Republican Candidate Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno).

Some of Murphy’s stated agenda: social justice, equal pay for women, a $15 minimum wage, legalized recreational marijuana, immigration reform, and tougher gun laws.

Recorded 1/13/18 – https://www.DontWasteYourHate.com/25

Phil Murphy’s Inauguration Speech

Everything you need to know about Phil Murphy’s inauguration and his first day on the job

Murphy Plans To Create State Agency To Aid Illegal Immigrants

Murphy’s Campaign Website

NJ Marijuana Debate Heats Up Ahead Of Phil Murphy’s Inauguration

Phil Murphy signs executive order on equal pay for women

Reason Magazine: Gov. Jerry Brown: Courts Must Let California Slash its Public-Sector Pensions

Carmine’s Prior Appearances on DWYH:

Ep. 3 – Fat Chris Christie Ruins July In Jersey

Ep. 4 – Military Trans Ban, Scaramucci, and Trump

Ep. 5 – Brexit And Secession: A View From Old New Jersey

Source: Don’t Waste Your Hate Podcast – Ep. 25 – So On & So Forth w/Cousin Carmine 4: NJ Gov. Phil Murphy to Usher in Progressive Era

An Excerpt from Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution

By Murray N. Rothbard


The normative principle I am suggesting for the law is simply this: No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. There are degrees of seriousness of such invasion, and hence, different proper degrees of restitution or punishment. “Burglary,” simple invasion of property for purposes of theft, is less serious than “robbery,” where armed force is likely to be used against the victim. Here, however, we are not concerned with the questions of degrees of invasion or punishment, but simply with invasion per se.

If no man may invade another person’s “just” property, what is our criterion of justice to be? There is no space here to elaborate on a theory of justice in property titles. Suffice it to say that the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another’s person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or “mixes his labor with.” From these twin axioms — self-ownership and “homesteading” — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. The vague concept of “harm” is substituted for the precise one of physical violence. Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great “harm” to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to “enjoin” Bob’s very existence? Continue reading “An Excerpt from Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution”

Meet the woman who fought against “Breast Tax”

150 years ago, in Kerala (a regional state of India), lower caste ladies were compelled by the Brahmins and the King of Travancore to pay the “breast tax”. The tax rate was proportional to the breast size. The rationale behind it was to religiously sustain the cultural domination and social control over lower caste people. A “breast tax” or mulakkaram was imposed by the landowning and voyeuristic Brahmins on lower caste Hindu women (if they wanted to cover their breasts in public).

Mainly the Nadar and Ezhava communities weren’t allowed to cover their chests in front of members of the upper caste (Brahmins). This was considered a sign of modesty and it was important they complied. Clothing was considered a sign of wealth and prosperity, and the poor and the lower-castes were simply not entitled to it. No doubt to note that Hinduism is a religion of caste which continues to execute the features of social hierarchy. But, unfortunately, the fascists cannot control – all the people – all the time. With all due respect, instead of paying the “breast tax”, a lady named Nangeli stood up for her dignity or self-respect and cut off her breasts.

To make her protest known, she chopped off her breasts and presented them to a village officer in a plantain leaf. She died the same day from loss of blood. Nangeli’s husband, Chirukandan, on seeing her mutilated body, overcome by grief, jumped into her funeral pyre committing suicide.

Following the death of Nangeli, a series of people’s movements were set off and the breast tax system was ultimately annulled in Travancore. The place she lived came to be known later as Mulachiparambu (meaning land of the breasted woman). Sadly speaking, in today’s time, CBSE (a governmental body that regulates and censors the content or curriculum) issued a notification or a circular “banning the history of Nangeli from school books” because it finds the content “very objectionable”. This blog is an attempt to educate the readers about an unsung and unpopular revolutionary lady who fearlessly stood up to fight against the tyranny. In my view, you too have Nangeli’s conscience in your mind. It’s high time that you bring her out in yourself and “smash the tyranny” in any form. Freedom isn’t given to you. You have to snatch it. You may also view my video wherein I ratiocinate that taxation is theft:


Please share this blog, before your elected government issues any notification against my blog.

FPF #142 – Syria & a False Alarm

On FPF #142, I discuss the war in Syria. Israel has continued to bomb the Assad regime. Turkey is now threatening to invade Syria to attack the Kurds. Syria and Russia are waging a brutal air war against the Syrian rebels. The US says we are staying in Syria out of concern of Iranian influence. The US also announced plans to create a huge border army to defend the Kurdish state in eastern Syria. I cover the false alarm in Hawaii and Tulsi Gabbard’s demand the US engage in talks with North Korea. I also update Korean peace talks and Panama

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #142 – Syria & a False Alarm

Episode 59 – WALL-E (51:49)

We hang on to the last vestiges of my youth as I turn 40 and talk about a children’s movie with my friend since childhood, and co-host, Robert.

WALL-E is a charming story of a lonely robot who gains sentience and becomes lonely; but there’s also some ridiculous economic fallacies and a few strong propagandistic messages being pushed.

RATING
(On our new “Out of 10.0 Scale”)
Robert gives it a 7.2
Daniel drops a 9.0

We hope you enjoy this one!

Continue reading “Episode 59 – WALL-E (51:49)”

Liberty and Violence: A Paradox

By Steven Clyde


The World Health Organization, though incorrectly identifying “self-harm” as a form of violence[1], provides an otherwise laudable definition of violence:

the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation[2]

The question of primacy then for libertarians as it relates to liberty is as follows:

“Is using violence against non-violent individuals ever justified?”

A common argument is that violence is warranted when used to retrieve stolen property or to mitigate the acts of being defrauded. These examples still beg the original question, as both stealing and defrauding property are considered a form of violence itself; theft is clearly deprivation; theft is clearly intentional.

However, when “defensive violence” becomes conflated with“aggressive violence”, it becomes an obvious concealment for the true intent of the aggressors.

For example, if Robinson Crusoe shows up on an island and claims a coconut tree for himself (among many), and someone else shows up and tries to claim the same tree, it would be argued that “Crusoe is inherently violent. If someone seeks to access “his” tree”, which is given to all of us by nature, he will use violence.”

It is not asked, however, “why is person B attempting to use the tree Crusoe has claimed and begun to care for when 1.) there are plenty of other trees around to homestead, and other islands for that matter and 2.) it has been expressed that conflict will unnecessarily arise.

It cannot be taken seriously that there is real concern over scarce resources being oppressively utilized, but only that a desire to encourage conflict is prevalent in the first place; the lust of another’s source of happiness, in other words, seeks to downplay the sacrifices and time preferences of people enhancing their lives.

Yet many examples exist outside of Crusoe’s fictitious island.

Continue reading “Liberty and Violence: A Paradox”

The Inaugural Libertarian Union Meetup

I know that libertarians are an individualistic bunch and are anti-collectivist, but there’s something to be said about the usefulness of voluntary coalitions.  This week we bring you an in person conversation between Patrick MacFarlane of the Liberty Weekly podcast where his staple topic has been centered around aspects of law from the perspective of an anarchocapitalist.  We discuss tactics, pragmatism, conspiracies, net neutrality, the left-right dichotomy, culture, and among other tangential topics.  Subscribe to Pat’s show and follow his blog over at LibertyWeekly.net

Patrick and I crossed paths through both doing libertarian podcasts, having both become part of a podcast network called The Libertarian Union. Find more at LibertarianUnion.com

The post The Inaugural Libertarian Union Meetup appeared first on Subversion.

Source: Subversion – The Inaugural Libertarian Union Meetup

MLK Jr. Would Not Accuse Trump's "shi*thole" Comment as Racist, but "Racial Ignorance" (DMR)

Picture

I know that I’m going to start a firestorm with this post, but I think that this is a conversation worth having. It seems that not a day passes that headlines don’t carry news of accusations of racism. To be sure, racism certainly is alive and well; I do not want to give the impression that I’m downplaying that reality. It is alive, and it cuts more than one way.

That said, I think that the frequency of knee-jerk, reactionary accusations of racism against people for equivocal remarks causes society to be far too sensitive and even unable to recognize true racism when it manifests. (In other words, if everything is racist, then nothing is racist.) It diminishes attempts to address indisputable and/or egregious displays of racism, thus undermining the very goal it means to achieve.

Yes, I have in mind Donald Trump’s calling Haiti and African nations “sh*tholes.” To be sure, I am NOT excusing that remark. Should he have said it? Absolutely not. Was it Presidential? No.

Was it a racist remark though? I’m not so sure–certainly not sure enough that I think it should dominate headlines as such. Trump is a tactless man with a small vocabulary, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he communicates this way on a broad range of topics, including on many that are not even tangentially related to race. Furthermore, he did not proactively bring up Haiti or African nations, and he probably wasn’t talking only about them (Central America also apparently was an intended target). His remarks were in response to their being mentioned both in the immigration bill and orally in the meeting.

Additionally, Trump’s remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries–at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems.

In order for that to be a racist idea, it would need to be discriminatory and wrong. It isn’t though. There is a reason that Americans aren’t beating down the doors of Africa in an attempt to move there.

It is invariably true that Haiti and a large number of African nations have problems that would lead many good, accepting, open-minded people to think–perhaps in different words–what Trump said. Race and tribal warfare. Religious violence. Rape as a weapon. Infanticide. Economic and kinetic warfare against populations by their own governments. Apartheid (until appallingly recently). Extremely high unemployment rates. The use of women and children as instruments of terrorism. Abject poverty. AIDS.

Do these describe all of Africa? No. Do they apply to all African countries? No. One or a combination of them do, however, apply to a too-large number of African countries–disproportionately so. There is much to love about Africa. The picture there is far from universally negative, but it remains true that problems like these are relatively more prevalent there.

This is not to say that there is anything lesser or inadequate about Africans themselves. There isn’t. They are victims of extremely poor governance and of circumstances that frequently are beyond their control. They need our help. Alleged Trump racism isn’t what’s causing these problems though. Extractive, kleptocratic leadership in many African countries is the primary cause of these problems. (For example, can one really look at the Congo and at its horrendous leadership and objectively believe that only racism could possibly cause someone to develop a negative opinion of it?)Additionally, Trump’s remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries–at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems.

Trump should not have said what he did for many reasons, including the reality that it will probably harm our relations with some African countries. The remark was cold and unwarranted. Was it racist though? I don’t think that we can say for sure that it was.

I agree with Martin Luther King, Jr: Trump’s remark probably wasn’t a sign of racism. Rather, it was probably just a sign of “racial ignorance.”

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 – MLK Jr. Would Not Accuse Trump's "shi*thole" Comment as Racist, but "Racial Ignorance" (DMR)

FPF #141 – Trump Says Mean Things

On FPF #141, I discuss the media’s reaction to Trump’s alleged statement on Africa and Haiti. ‘The Resistance’ was flabbergasted by the fact that Trump would say something so rude. However, US policy has caused genocide, famine, refugee crisis, slavery, epidemic, war, failed states, and countless war crimes that have gone unnoticed. I look at some of the real crimes and problems US presidents have caused across Africa and the Middle East. I talk about Trump saying within the Nuclear Agreement with Iran. I also update North Korea, Yemen, and Pakistan. 

Debunking Iran myths show

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #141 – Trump Says Mean Things