You are currently viewing the aggregator for the Distributed Republic reader blogs. You can surf to any author's blog by clicking on the link at the bottom of one of his/her posts. If you wish to participate, feel free to register (at the top of the right sidebar) and start blogging.
The main page of the blog can be found here.
Here's my reasoning. Obama has raised so much cash and has run so many ads that the American public will blame him for all the commercial interruptions during their favorite shows. Mark my words.
Martin Sargent, of TechTV and Infected infamy was canned late October from his post at Revision3. Jim Louderback, CEO or Revision3, stated in a blog post that:
We’ve had a number of great successes here at Revision3, including Diggnation, Tekzilla and The Totally Rad Show. But not everything pans out. Just as in the past, when we ended shows that just weren’t building audiences or driving revenue, we had to make changes. As you may have heard, today we had to make some tough staffing decisions as we ended the run of a few of our shows.
For our long-running Photoshop show Pixel Perfect, it’s the end of a show that’s done over a hundred episodes, and delivered essentially a graduate level course in graphic design and technique. For PopSiren and Internet Superstar, it’s the end of 2 shows that had great promise, but never really found their audience.
Internet Superstar was the Sarge's latest show, after the end of Infected and Web Drifter.
His drunken humor and fake Olive Garden commercials will be greatly missed. I leave you with one of his most entertaining and informative episodes of Infected, number 27, the pornography special.
This contradicts a lot of my conservative friends who, fancying themselves aristocrats, tend to argue that the rabble would vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements and fritter their money away on faddish programs without the wise hand of a (democratically assented to) representative elite to check them.
I'm in no position to judge the social science behind the study, but I think there are many reasons to favor direct democratic decision making as a second-best alternative to contract and anarchy.
- Direct democratic referenda are about the only form of electoral politics where libertarian laws can get considered seriously and where libertarians can vote without holding their noses. Think of things like Prop 215, which legalized medical marijuana in California.
- Direct democratic voting avoids a lot of the problems with log-rolling and special interests. It's prohibitively expensive, both due to the transaction costs and total number of electors involved, to bribe off the entire voting population.
- A serious commitment to direct democracy naturally tends towards the decentralization of power and smaller jurisdictions. The unwieldiness and slowness of direct democracy are features not bugs. Because of the hard limits on the number of questions that can be seriously considered and voted on, a direct democratic system will of necessity tend to cleave to the principle of subsidiarity, the notion that decision making should be deferred to the smallest competent units.
- Another feature of the ponderousness of direct democracy is that in many situations, cooler heads would prevail. If it had required several months for the gears of democratic legislation to turn, there would have been more debate regarding the response to 9/11, especially things like the PATRIOT Act, and more time for people's emotions to cool down.
- The slowness of direct democracy would also give the market and civil society a shot to solve problems and get a head start on government intervention before the state could bring the hammer down. Perhaps the question of a financial bailout would be a moot point by the time voters got to decide on the issue and one reason that the internet is so free is that it changes faster than bodies like Congress can react to regulate it.
I find the example of Switzerland very encouraging. Direct democracy has a long history in Switzerland and the country is notably more decentralized, libertarian, and conservative than most developed countries.
All-American Kid "And if you arrest me you dumb cop/I'll find your daughter and I'll give her this cock" Rock, serves his country with this stirring ode to the National Guard.
So don't tell me who's wrong and right
when liberty starts slipping away.
and if you ain't gonna fight,
get out of the way.
I love how the Army National Guard only pays for the best talent at the peak of its popularity to record their recruiting music. For another example, check out this 3 Doors Down video "Citizen Soldiers."
I saw the latter video at a theater during the advertisements before the movie "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," a movie in which the characters' response to discovering an ancient underground golden city in South Dakota is eclipsed by their awe-struck wonder at meeting the President of the United States.
Ha ha, take that Theophanes!
# Constant - 12 posts
# Theophanes - 12 posts
If it's a post war you want Constant, you got it, because I AM A WARRIOR.
The Somali Report: A biased, polemic report where we (pluralis majestatis) black marketeers salute the free Somali people and their struggle against international imperialism.
African Union thugs late last month reported heavy fighting for the strategic K 4 traffic circle in midtown Mogadishu. "This was the third day in a row that we were attacked at K4." Ugandan army Maj Bahoku Barigye said in an interview. They reported no casualties and also left out any numbers regarding deaths on either side. The BBC would sure have printed it, so they must not have bagged any of those nationalist or Islamist belligerents they are shooting at.
After making sure to create a correlation between the civil war and Islam, furthering the fear of the brown menace in the west's populace, the BBC continues:
Meanwhile, the peacekeepers are stuck in the middle of the belligerents with a questionable mandate and insufficient troops.
They then blather on about the disease and famine that has acutely affected that region for decades. Parroting the call of the internationalists: "Restore order and deliver food". Didn't they already try that, a bunch of times? Didn't these backwards little people force the withdrawal of the strongest military in the world by simply presenting a diffuse threat?
Can I time these articles or what? The day after I put up my article on Ethiopia’s troubles in Somalia, 5 car bombs go off in two Somali cities targeting the Ethiopian consulate in Hargeisa, the Presidential Palace (such as it is), a UN HQ, and the Puntland Intelligence Service.
According to the BBC, the state captures a cleric and holds him, without evidence. You dont have to ask me to know that the state controlled media of the west constantly reports on islamists held for questions. Naturally, most of these would be terrorists are never charged. The threats and lies of the media having already done their job. Fear Islam folks, its the LAW.
The humorous headline reads:
Cleric held over Somali car bombs
A paragraph or two down and bam, truth:
No-one has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the US has said it believes they were carried out by militants linked to al-Qaeda.
The Empire of Lies only opens its mouth to lie or devour our children.
Avast mateys! we set a c'rse round the harn!
God, that’s got to be one of the scariest sights in the world, a speedboat full of Somali skeletons armed to the teeth coming aboard. These crews are mostly from hardworking South Asian places, Tamil or Bengali, and they didn’t sign on to play straight man to the Pirates of Puntland.
Once in a while you get a little more poetic justice, like when they boarded a French yacht and took the crew hostage a while back. Unfortunately, the champagne-poppers were rescued.
To the pirates and other belligerents of Somalia, I salute you!
Bringing the world under the oppressive grip of petro-imperialists is dirty business. Directed killings and mass murder go hand in hand when the Empire of Lies spreads its tentacles deeper into Babylon.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Thousands of Syrians have taken to the streets of Damascus to protest Sunday’s US military raid that killed eight people in the Syrian village of Abu Kamal, five miles from Syria’s border with Iraq. The US embassy in Damascus is shut down for the day and surrounded by heavily armed police.
On Tuesday, Syria lodged a complaint with the UN and ordered the closure of an American school and cultural center. The Assad government is demanding a formal apology from the US and has threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security. On Monday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moualem called the attack an act of “terrorist aggression.”
WALID AL-MOUALEM: Killing civilians in international law means terrorist aggression. The Americans do it under daylight. This means it is not mistake. It is by determination, by blunt determination. For that, we consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government, and they need to investigate and return back to us with the result and explanation why they did it.
The White House comment is, in essence: Be a "Good German" and stop asking questions.
DANA PERINO: Jim, what I can tell you is that I am not able to comment on reports about this reported incident, and I’m not going to—I’m not going to do so. You can come up here and try to beat it out of me, but I will not be commenting on this in any way, shape or form today. Or tomorrow—
REPORTER: What about another agency? Nobody? If it comes, it’s going to come from here, and so it’s not going to—nothing is going to come out of it?
DANA PERINO: I don’t believe anybody is commenting on this at all. April?
REPORTER: Dana, why can’t you comment? Is it a reason for national security, or is it political? I mean, why not—
DANA PERINO: To give you an answer to that would be commenting in some way on it, and I’m not going to do it. So, I—
REPORTER: But, I mean, Dana, you can’t give us anything? I mean, this is a major issue.
DANA PERINO: Nothing.
REPORTER: This is a major issue.
DANA PERINO: I understand the reports are serious, but it’s not something I’m going to comment on in any way.
The jingoist, bloodthirsty MSM has been avoiding this for the most part. Those not avoiding it are defending the action as being necessary to fight the War on Terror. War is peace, ignorance is strength.
I can't help but see Doctor Strangelove, attempting to prevent his arm from shooting up into a straight armed, 45 degree salute. JA WOLLE mein fuhrer!
One misconception about the Great Depression was that Herbert Hoover was a free market Republican Conservative. He was actually a technocratic government activist, with a disastrous track record. His predecessor Calvin Coolidge was a true conservative whose motto was “All freedom is individual.” Conservatives get a bad rap from libertarians because of modern day pseudo-conservatives. Unfortunately true conservatives today are even more peripheral than libertarians. Never fear, we are about to get some change. But what sort of change?
When Obama takes over will he be the new Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Good piece over at Chicago Boyz about the fate of privacy under the nanny state.
... When we set the State a task, no matter how well intentioned or widely supported, we grant it the power to collect and store the information needed to carry out that task. ... Neither can we let the State keep such information secret. The public needs access to that information to determine if the State performed the task set for it or to determine if it abused its power. ...
People forget that the primary modality for control in a modern tyranny is not the secret police but rather fine tuned control over peoples economic lives. ...
Something of the same system arose in the major cities of the northeast during the early half of the 20th Century. ...
Each year we come up with some innocuous little program that we believe will do some good and we tack it on top of the many, many layers of programs from previous years. At the same time, we rarely terminate any programs. ...
People who wet their pants because the NSA reads their international emails are worrying about the wrong part of government. The NSA can only know who you talked to overseas, the rest of government can peer into the totality of your life.
Sam lived in a large house on top of the hill. From his favourite seat in the living room he had a view of the entire valley with the ocean in sight several miles away. From his breakfast table he had a view of the town with which he had a mutual dependence. While Sam viewed his home as a modest house for which he had worked hard, to most of the inhabitants of the town it was referred to as “the mansion”.
The river which divided the house from the town was wide, but the flow of people and ideas across the river was incessant.
Sam had grown up in the house and town, as had his father, although his grandfather would not recognize the house if he were to return to see it. It had undergone many changes, in technology and in design as the younger owners had modified it to suit their needs and their perceived notions of their place in the community.
The house had begun as a simple structure lacking the comforts of running water or indoor plumbing. Slowly through the years, as the Allen family prospered, the house had grown with new wings spreading out to the west and a large verandah where family members could go when they wished to look out upon the world, a world which they now dominated and which they quietly considered to be their own. Now the house was the largest one in the community and had many conveniences and technological devices that could not be afforded by most of the other people in town. They looked upon the house with envy, but not resentment, feeling that it was a goal toward which they could work.
When Sam had been born his father had determined to name him after one of the most famous of American generals, Ulysses Simpson Grant. While his mother was sympathetic to this desire, she understood that no boy could venture into a schoolyard as a Ulysses, nor as a Simpson. Consequently she had called him Sam, a corruption of Simpson, from the beginning.
As a boy Sam had enjoyed many privileges not available to his friends and playmates from school. His parents were egalitarian and encouraged Sam to bring his friends home to play with his toys, many of which could not be afforded by their parents. In turn Sam would often travel to their homes and neighbourhoods, realizing that he would not have the conveniences of his home, but relishing the chance to adventure in these unfamiliar environments.
Sam was no angel. At times he would taunt his friends with their lack of nice things and would demand that they follow him when they embarked on their adventures together. He was always “captain” and would seldom admit that another boy’s idea was better than his own. This was the ugly side of Sam’s personality.
Sam did not offer forgiveness easily. After a dispute with one Hispanic boy, over who would be president of their fort in the woods, the boy’s father had to get involved and sent Sam home. Sam never forgot the embarrassment of the day and refused to ever go back to the fort or to ever allow the boy to visit in his home. In fact Sam discouraged all of his friends from ever having anything to do with the boy.
However, Sam was also well liked by the parents of his friends. He was helpful around their houses and would join in to complete the tasks that were required in these simple homes, from carrying water into the kitchens to helping the men erect new buildings on their property. He was known to stop in at the homes of some of the old people and leave gifts of cash to help them meet their daily needs. He was quick to help his friends with their homework or even to give them his expensive toys. Because of this Sam developed a reputation as a good person and was often regarded as a good Samaritan.
Sam had taken over as the owner and operator of the family mill which manufactured bedding from cotton and linen imported from outside the region. Most of the people in town worked at the mill and were dependent upon Sam for their livelihood. Those townspeople who didn’t work in the mill ran or worked for businesses which provided goods and services to the mill or to the people who worked there. It was an arrangement that was good for everyone and had been in place for over a century.
The Allen family mill stood on its own property a short distance from the house. While it was invisible to anyone in the house, or to anyone in town, its presence was felt by everyone. It was located near the river and a short bridge connected it to the town so that the workers who lived in the town could cross over for work each day. This bridge had been built in the early days of the mill and there were many stories about people who had crossed over to get a job and had gone on to provide themselves and their families with an improved lifestyle as a result of the trip. These people were thankful for the opportunity to obtain a job at the mill and proudly defensive of the mill, Sam and everything connected with them.
John Castor had long been Sam’s cousin and best friend. While Sam had been one grade ahead of John in school, they were always found together, engaged in one activity or another. John was an independent sort of person and easily found his own niche in the world. He looked up to Sam like a big brother and was quick to agree to be a part of most of Sam’s schemes. Over the years they had had many disputes, but only one fight of any significance. That had occurred when they were teenagers and both interested in the same girl. After rolling around in the dirt, throwing a few punches and some name calling, they both got up to find the girl had left and neither of them had benefited from the spat. They never saw her again.
John grew up to be a successful businessman in his own right, never as wealthy as Sam, but comfortably well off with no need to have more. Raw materials from his company kept Sam’s mill in operation. He also owned several cotton fields of his own and brokered cotton from other farmers. The result was that Sam never had to worry about having enough cotton to produce the fabric in his mill. In addition John had control of a large supply of silk so that he was able to supply the mill with all the silk it needed to produce their high end fabrics as well. This mutual need for one another for businesses purposes cemented their relationship, but John was more committed to it than Sam who continually searched the world for new and cheaper sources of material for his mill. Just as in childhood John remained slightly in awe of his older cousin and while from time to time he would search for another buyer of his materials he never seriously doubted that the long relationship between the two of them would remain the source of business for his firm.
John was always there for Sam. He was the first to arrive on the scene when a hurricane blew down the barn at the back of Sam’s property and he was the one to rescue Sam’s youngest son when a kidnapper had locked him in an abandoned office building in a nearby town. Still when things got tough for Sam he often overlooked his cousin and sought assistance elsewhere.
It was 22 years after the kidnapping that the mafia became involved. Sam had laughed when they offered to protect his plant for a small monthly fee. In fact he accused them of being a bunch of lazy individuals who were not able to earn a living on their own, but existed off the wealth of the hard working people of the community. One week later a bomb blew up in the factory and killed every one working there. One of the victims was a cousin of John’s who was regarded with respect as an up and coming manager who was capable of doing great things in the future. John grieved for him.
Sam became crazy with anger and grief. He wanted to raid Little Italy on the west side of town and run all of the mafia and its supporters out of town. He appealed to everyone in the area for help. John counseled caution, but was immediately rebuffed because of Sam’s intense anger.
Before long Sam had rounded up a band of vigilantes which included several members of the local police and began a raid on little Italy. Many people were killed and most of the buildings were burned to the ground. Several of Sam’s band also died in the warfare that ensued. Mafia members were among the people killed and injured, but most of their members lived in secret in another city and were untouched. John worked with Sam to help the police investigate and locate the secret mafia members who had planned the attack, but Sam was not mollified. He would not countenance the moral support of anyone who wanted him to deal with the mafia in a legal way, but who were unwilling to get their hands dirty along side him in the battles of Little Italy. He called John a coward and turned his back on his oldest friend when they met at a meeting of the local Rotary Club.
Other citizens of the town were divided. Some agreed that Sam had the right to attack Little Italy because it was the centre for mafia activity. The feeling was that the police would not be able to do anything and if they could attack the mafia at its roots they would end the lawlessness which the mafia represented. Innocent people were bound to be killed, but that was the price they paid for hiding mafia members and failing to co-operate with Sam’s attempts to root out the perpetrators of the explosion in the mill. Other people thought it was wrong for Sam to take the law into his own hands and that ascribing mafia sympathies to all the members of the enclave was wrong. They expressed their disaffection in public and were soon scorned by Sam’s supporters.
Sam continued to be the most important person in town. He hired many people and did business with many others. He was not averse to boycotting a business whose owner was a part of his opposition and so turmoil in the town grew greater and greater.
Over the next eight years the conflict in Little Italy got worse although the intense battles quieted down after a while as most people were too exhausted and poor to continue the fighting that been a part of the initial phases of the struggle. Some of Sam’s supporters dropped away, but no one was willing to take the chance of losing his business to say too much in public. In private however, more and more people were questioning his sanity. It was clear to most people that John had been right in the first place and yet no one was willing to admit that the eight years had been a waste.
Eight years after the bombing Sam passed away. Mourners came from many different places and many different factions. They had kind things to say and buried him with the greatest of honour. Two of Sam’s children were in line to succeed him. His daughter promised to bring changes to the company, but promised to continue the campaign to gain revenge and bring the mafia to justice. The son called for reconciliation with other members of the community and to bring peace to the fight with the inhabitants of Little Italy. He vowed to continue to lead a fight to bring the bombers to justice, but called for a dialogue with all of the other members of the community and to bring healing to the relationships which had been damaged by the long dispute.
The people of the community watched the succession with a great interest. Many company shareholders wondered why there was so much interest from people who were not involved in the company. They did not understand the conflicting emotions which caught at the community as people were torn between envy at the success of the Allen family and resentment at the way in which the family had abused their privilege to achieve the success they had.
Shareholders of the company would have to make a choice. The future of their company would be decided by the choice which they made. The future of the community would be decided by the impact which the choice would have on their company.
Brad Spangler: Is Ashley Todd Lying?
"Ashley Todd, a 20-year-old college student and McCain volunteer, admitted on Friday that she made up a widely reported story about being mugged by a so-called big black guy at an ATM in Pittsburgh."
This is a subject I already touched here
Then I said,
Consequentialists arguments are very efficient because people are generally willing to change their mind easily on those matters... but what make them successful also makes them weak : they can be replaced with other consequentialist arguments. Moral arguments are much tougher to make because people are more reluctant to accept a new moral philosophy, but they are also much more stable, and will likely be successfully passed onto children. Every consequentialist argument however is a step away from freedom as an end instead of freedom as a mean. On the long term, the fate of the new belief is unknown... it may be replaced with an economic fallacy. It's negative effect on morality will always be damaging though.
I was right (duh). Indeed, with the financial crisis raging, it is easy to find free market libertarians getting cold feet. Greenspan confesses
I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"
Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Waxman said.
"Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan replied. "You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."
Whoa, this is Greenspan ?
There are other examples, of libertarians hiding, feeling guilty, changing their mind about regulation, etc. I've seen plenty on French classical liberal blogs.
Consequentialist Austrians are ok for now, because they saw it coming long ago, but the problem remains. Regulation is a matter of rights. A state is not a special moral entity, it has no right to tell other people what kind of business they can engage in, provided they respect other people's right. Although I don't believe this crisis was the result of free market gone wrong, I do believe it is possible for big crisis to happen in a free market, especially since globalization has tied so many people together. In any case, even financial Armageddon do not justify regulation, period.
Rand understood this problem very well and kept repeating that if you make promises on the "good" results of capitalism, you might end up with disappointed people turning against capitalism. How many people who where convinced that free market are good on a utilitarian basis are now changing their mind ? Years of the utilitarian / libertarian propaganda have been destroyed in a matter of months.
I'm a big proponent of the theory that publicly subsidized transportation is one of the most important forms of market intervention. For just a partial example of its pernicious effects, public roads are a huge subsidy to large-scale, centralized firms, and a driving force behind urban sprawl,and the destruction of community and family that accompanies this unsustainable and unattractive development and the lifestyles that go with it.
On the other hand I always felt a little twinge of pain at condemning things like car culture and the interstate system. Like a lot of Americans, I get a kick out of being able to whoop it up to 75 miles per hour on artificially cheap gas and free roads and love the feeling of freedom from being able to move quickly and easily all over this bitch.
But I just had a realization that makes me feel a lot better.
While it would presumably be more expensive to move around in a free market (at least until the liberated entrepreneurs and engineers got around to selling us solar powered flying cars), We wouldn't need to travel so far to get what we wanted, and wouldn't have to go so far away to be somewhere very different from where we started.
Right now, I have to drive 20 miles round-trip to get to a library or bookstore that carries books other than quilting guides. On the other hand, a free-market in transportation, with all the costs internalized, would likely bring these sorts of businesses back to my little town's struggling Main Street as the transportation surcharge on any purchase obviated much of the price differential of buying in the city. It wouldn't matter that I couldn't drive as much anymore.
Even though, at present, I can drive from Idaho Falls, ID to Phoenix, AZ in as little as 14 hours on $100 in gas, when I get to my destination I'm still going to be eating dinner at Denny's, the same place I ate breakfast, and I'm going to be shopping for sunglasses to replace the ones I sat on after lunch in Utah at a Walmart identical to the one I bought a road atlas at that morning. The nice Jello Belt Mormon lady who checks me into my hotel will have a lot in common with the woman I bought gas from in Utah. If I made a trip of similar distance in Europe, I could travel from London to Vienna, passing through five countries, each with their own distinct culture, language, and traditions--holdovers from a time when in fact travel was more expensive and qualities that are disappearing as the effects of subsidized gas, roads, jet and car technology, and shipping play themselves out.
In a liberated society, the economy and culture would be much more decentralized and diverse. While meandering toll roads and market priced gas would certainly decrease my objective ability to travel long distances, my subjective ability to get where I wanted to be and experience new things, see new places, and meet interesting people would no doubt increase.
In an interview in Reason Magazine Milton Friedman said
"I start from a belief in individual freedom and that derives fundamentally from a belief in the limitations of our knowledge, from a belief—that nobody can be sure that what he believes, is really right..so--.The most attractive position—is putting individual freedom first.
There's a great deal of basis for believing that a free society is fundamentally unstable—we may regret this but we've got to face up to the facts....I think it's the utmost of naiveté to suppose that a free society is somehow the natural order of things.
It's fortunate that the capitalist society is more productive, because if it were not it would never be tolerated. The bias against it is so great that—it's got to have a five-to-one advantage in order to survive.
I think a major reason why intellectuals tend to move towards collectivism is that the collectivist answer is a simple one. If there's something wrong, pass a law and do something about it."
More than 100 faculty at the University of Chicago, where Mr. Friedman won the 1976 Nobel Prize in economics, are trying to stop the university from putting Mr. Friedman's name on a 200-million dollar research center. The institute, which will focus on economic research was officially unveiled last May. A few weeks later, about 100 professors signed a letter calling on the university to reconsider the project. Since then, 172 faculty along with more than 1,000 students and alumni have signed a petition opposing the institute.
“He was the darling of the Reaganite revolution and the American right,” said Bruce Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions who is leading the charge against the institute. “He was a scathing critic of the state playing a role of any importance.” If the institute goes ahead, Prof. Lincoln said it will attract “a certain kind of donor who is a great cheerleader for Friedman's politics,” and that donor will try to “steer research in a direction that's going to advance the cause.” He said the recent economic turmoil has bolstered opponents. “It's now a whole lot more obvious to everyone that [Mr. Friedman] got us into some problems and that he didn't have the final solution to everything that makes an economy work.”
However, Friedman had long warned of the dangers of easy credit backed by the government.
“Therefore active monetary (e.g. easy credit) or fiscal (e.g. tax and spend) policy can have unintended negative effects. In Capitalism and Freedom (1967) Friedman wrote,
"There is likely to be a lag between the need for action and government recognition of the need; a further lag between recognition of the need for action and the taking of action; and a still further lag between the action and its effects.”
Wikipedia on Friedman
A book by Naomi Klein defaming Friedman http://reas has become popular in leftist circles while fellow economists have both praised and criticized Friedman. Krugman On Friedman.
Obviously, something had to be done to prevent people from using alcohol in the way that nature (or at least Neolithic Man) originally intended.
An even better question is this: how many years, or decades, or centuries would it take you or me or any other decent individual to come up with the solution that popped into their twisted minds almost immediately? Their solution? They'd poison the alcohol folks bought to cool their sick kids' bodies, so that if they drank it, they'd go blind.
They called it "denatured alcohol", and that's what should be on the Great Seal of the United States today, as a symbol and warning of what government is really all about: threatening people with injury or death if they fail to comply with the slightest whim of the mentally putrefying scumbags who run it. Today, the stuff is still poisoned, seven decades after Prohibition finally ended, to force you and me to pay religiously based discriminatory "sin" taxes on alcohol made for drinking.
Remember that you heard it here first: taxation is the root of all evil.
Powerful words from a great killer ape. I have read most of his books and essays, great stuff!
and economic conditions for the working class since Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden, at least since writing was invented and history began. One can't blame the economic system for any person with normal (OK) health and an IQ over 90 for living in real poverty, for not having his own warm, dry, enclosed space with normal utilities that he can call "home," a rented room or whatever. One can't blame the economy for not having sufficient and proper food and clothing.
Further, the economic/political classification has changed, now including anyone in the bottom 20% of the economic food chain. But the nature of poverty has changed. Most poor people have every sort of consumer product that the rich people have, but of a lower quality. The big difference between that the the rich people don't stand in line, can afford servants, and don't worry about job security.
Half the people using food stamps are on the program for less than 2 years - mostly college kids. Yes, some people seem to have extra-ordinary runs of bad luck. (Hard cases make for bad legislation.) But the vast majority of the long term working poor and street people I have talked to - thousands of them - either have mental and socialization problems and/or can't plan ahead . . . can't defer gratification and save for the future.