A short 4 paragraph essay. Originally 5 for a class but edited here and there (and exclusive of a paragraph) so I can post it here.

            “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” writes Orwell in his allegory Animal Farm (representational of Stalinist Russia, an infamous form of a totalitarian state). Ray Bradbury writes of a similar dystopia in his novel Fahrenheit 451. Both of these aforementioned societies include widespread censorship; it is known that a common beginning for oppressive regimes is the removal of the right of free-speech and freedom of the press. States often enact policies of censorship for the sake of a “just cause”, but it is only ever self-defeating. Censorship is one of the largest dangers there is to a government and its people. Empirically, it is the best of means to provide domestic destruction and turmoil. Adversely, assuring the liberties of all people serves as the best means for a prosperous and happy society. Only tyrannical despots may find the arguments to justify a spurious freedom and democracy, such as the ones people mainly live in thus far in the 21st century.

            Governments commonly fail after pushing censorship to its people: Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya to name a few. Others take longer to fail, such as Communist Russia, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and even countries such as East Germany and others in Europe. These are all centrally planned, all oppressive, and all failures. By removing the rights held by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the oppressive regimes effectively pave way for the use of incredible fiscal irresponsibility and crashing economies. Even in the Roman Empire’s history, as speech and other liberties become more exclusive of the people, its debt-to-GDP ratio accelerates to one hundred percent and sets the Empire into hyperinflation and then a crumbling end; there is a similar story for the Weimer Republic. Central banks, deficits, and overbearing regulation in both home and business life all stem from the end of the very essential liberty of speech. Books, films, and documents are where new ideas come from: new ideas for the proletariat and the people upset with the status quo. If there is no speech, there is no change.

            It is also evident that as societies becomes freer, there is a more fulfilling life for its inhabitants. After the European communists fail and become more capitalistic, they witness economic booms (still susceptible to large market busts though by way of the European Union). The United States remains a guide for prosperous societies, because through most of its history it is fairly liberal and, therefore, very wealthy monetarily and sentimentally. China picks up some of these traits and races to becoming a superpower; more specifically, Hong Kong (a pseudo-sovereign-state, still limited by many collectivist policies) is listed as one of the most successful “countries” in the world in the same regards as the United States. Liberties that bring about change often bring more economic freedoms, keeping the individual paramount for any society.

            Government controls the essential liberties of the people, and the only weapon against the government are those same liberties. Bradbury and Orwell demonstrate this in their works; global politics effectively does the same, both in the regard to its failures and successes. Orwell famously states that, “[i]f you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face —forever.” This is no fallacy. The state becomes vicious as rights deteriorate, and the first to go is freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. And one must remember that censorship from a “Democratic” government is no different than a dictator, elected or unelected. Force and coercion, which are state powers, are as dangerous as fire to play with.

thisgingersnapsback:

• I am automatically correct!
• You’re not allowed to disagree with me or vocalize this disagreement!
• Anything you say to me in disagreement is immediately invalid because that’s just your opinion!
• Your facts are just your opinion!
• I have the right to never be questioned!
• I’m just as informed as you are even though I’ve not looked at the facts!
• I don’t NEED to look at the facts, because I don’t NEED to change my opinion!
• Opinions are sacred!

“MY OPINION” DOES mean:

• I am not automatically correct!
• If the facts disagree with my opinion, then my opinion is wrong!
• People are allowed to tell me about the facts!
• People are allowed to to tell me that I’m wrong!
• Just because it’s my opinion doesn’t mean I get the free-for-all card to be an ignorant douchenozzle on the subject!
• Disagreeing with FACTS just because I’d rather cling to your OPINION doesn’t make me RIGHT, it makes me STUBBORN.
• All opinions are open to criticism, mine included!

What I don’t like about this is the fact that even though facts may support your opinion, other facts will support the other opinion. Having facts doesn’t automatically prove an opinion right sadly, because there is so much subjective input.

For instance, I don’t believe in wealth redistribution. But the fact is we have a huge wealth gap. We see this mainly with financial sector workers. Now this fact backs up the opinion that we need wealth redistribution. But I believe this fact backs up my opinion that the Corporatism and regulation is truly what the harmful element in our economy is, and that they key is to free up the markets. 

So then we delve deeper: the fact that the Federal Reserve spent about $16 trillion in bailing out banks in private backs up my opinion that the government is propping up “banksters”, and that government is the problem. But the fact that banks were irresponsible with money in 2008 is an argument for regulation. And the fact that, if the banks were not bailed out, we would be in another depression is a huge argument for more government oversight. 

So the idea that some facts will prove all opinions wrong isn’t a good argument. All opinions will always have facts to turn to in order to argue against other facts. It truly is a never ending battle.

And hey, if people want to be arrogant and obnoxious with their opinions, then just ignore them. They have the guaranteed right to be obnoxious, but not the guaranteed right to have people pay attention to them.

mohandasgandhi:

Glenn Greenwald: With the new National Defense Authorization Act, Congress has formally declared that the entire world (including the U.S.) is a battlefield and the war will essentially go on forever

A bill co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin and GOP Sen. John McCain  (S. 1867) — included in the pending defense authorization bill — is predictably on its way to passage. It is triggering substantial alarm in many circles, including from the ACLU – and rightly so. But there are also many misconceptions about it that have been circulating that should be clarified, including a possible White House veto. Here are the bill’s three most important provisions:

(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032);

(2) renews the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) with more expansive language: to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who “substantially supports” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” (Sec. 1031); and,

(3) imposes new restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo (Secs. 1033-35).

There are several very revealing aspects to all of this. First, the 9/11 attack happened more than a decade ago; Osama bin Laden is dead; the U.S. Government claims it has killed virtually all of Al Qaeda’s leadership and the group is “operationally ineffective” in the Afghan-Pakistan region; and many commentators insisted that these developments would mean that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. And yet here we have the Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, acting not only to re-affirm the war but to expand it even further: by formally declaring that the entire world (including the U.S.) is a battlefield and the war will essentially go on forever.

Indeed, it seems clear that they are doing this precisely out of fear that the justifications they have long given for the War no longer exist and there is therefore a risk Americans will clamor for its end. This is Congress declaring: the War is more vibrant than ever and must be expanded further. For our political class and the private-sector that owns it, the War on Terror — Endless War — is an addiction: it is not a means to an end but the end itself (indeed, 2/3 of these war addicts in the Senate just rejected Rand Paul’s bill to repeal the 2003 Iraq AUMF even as they insist that the Iraq War has ended). This is the war-hungry U.S. Congress acting preemptively to ensure that there is no sense in the citizenry that the War on Terror — and especially all of the vast new powers it spawned — can start to wind down, let alone be reversed.

Second, consider how typically bipartisan this all is. The Senate just voted 37-61 against an amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, that would have stripped the Levin/McCain section from the bill: in other words, Levin/McCain garnered one more vote than the 60 needed to stave off a filibuster. Every GOP Senator (except Rand Paul and Mark Kirk) voted against the Udall amendment, while just enough Democrats – 16 in total — joined the GOP to ensure passage of Levin/McCain. That includes such progressive stalwarts as Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeanne Shaheen and its lead sponsor, Carl Levin.

I’ve described this little scam before as “Villain Rotation”: “They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.” This has happened with countless votes that are supposed manifestations of right-wing radicalism but that pass because an always-changing roster of Democrats ensure they have the support needed. So here is the Democratic Party — led by its senior progressive National Security expert, Carl Levin, and joined by just enough of its members — joining the GOP to ensure that this bill passes, and that the U.S. Government remains vested with War on Terror powers and even expands that war in some critical respects.

Third, I haven’t written about this bill until now for one reason: as odious and definitively radical as the powers are which this bill endorses, it doesn’t actually change the status quo all that much. That’s because the Bush and Obama administrations have already successfully claimed most of the powers in the bill, and courts have largely acquiesced. To be sure, there are dangers to having Congress formally codify these powers. But a powerful sign of how degraded our political culture has become is that this bill — which in any other time would be shockingly extremist — actually fits right in with who we are as a nation and what our political institutions are already doing. To be perfectly honest, I just couldn’t get myself worked up over a bill that, with some exceptions, does little more than formally recognize and codify what our Government is already doing.

(Continue reading…)

I wouldn’t be one to worry about this bill too much. This entirely supersedes congressional authority on a) a global scale and b) a domestic scale. Japanese internment camps 2.0 and tracking people down who support Al Qaeda with special forces?

So what of the Americans who do support Al Qaeda and are just exercising First Amendment rights? Albeit they are repugnant, they are absolutely entitled to these rights without a federal death threat.

This would reach the Supreme Court so fast it would make your head spin. It would never pass judicial review. Not even the “Necessary and Proper Clause” could vaguely defend this, like it has the other Congressional atrocities. 

I understand that there are many horrid laws in this country that restrict personal liberties. I understand that we have things like the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, and massive police brutality.

But as long as you have the freedom to openly accuse the government of being a police state, then you’re not in a police state. Now when I see freedom of speech being curbed to that extent, like what the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918 did, then I will be quite a bit more inclined to believe that we’re very close to a police state.

Once we lose our freedom of expression, we will have no defensive wall for our other liberties. We will lose all of our rights when we lose this right to free speech, which is paramount. We may still have the Constitution, but we’ve had far too many unconstitutional bills passed to depend upon it.

So yes, watch out. I’m watching out too, because I don’t doubt that it could happen. But for the moment, right now in 2011, we are by no means a police state.

amazingatheist:

CULT of Ron Paul

Discuss this video at my forums http://forum.thatfatatheist.com 
Visit my website http://thatfatatheist.com 

* * * 

Ron Paul on Seperation of Church and State:
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”
SOURCE: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Thomas Jefferson disagrees: 
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own”

Can a man who lies and distorts the message of this countries founders be trusted to run this country? 

Ron Paul on Evolution: 
“You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.”
SOURCE: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/

What? Dawkins on Evolution: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFOlyt7ErE
Ron Paul is a history-denier who claims to be a “scientist” yet doesn’t even know the definition of the word theory. 

Can a man who views a 2-5,000 year old anthology of primitive fairy tales as more compelling than a scientific fact be trusted with the highest position of power in the land?

The notion that Ron Paul does not believe in Church and State is a blind notion to say the least. When Dr. Paul speaks of Separation of Church and State, he’s not speaking about imposing religion and religious values on the people, like TJ here suspects. 

No, instead he is speaking of laws that prohibit the activity of the people of a certain faith. Here’s the best example: A faith or church accepts polygamists and homosexuals. This faith wants to marry its believers when their believers desire to do so, and since there is a legal definition of marriage, they want to go through the government and states to do so. But wait! The government, imposing itself onto this faith, doesn’t allow those marriages! Now the ability for these citizens to marry is hindered or halted. That isn’t Separation of Church and State as defined by the Constitution. 

The Separation of Church and State was not made only to prevent church from imposing values onto the state, but also to prevent the state from imposing values onto the people and hinder various faiths. The country was founded on the idea of personal liberties and freedom of religious dissent. But we don’t really have that right now, considering all faiths are not equal in the eyes of the state.

This ban of nativity scenes from Town Squares and other public lands should not be allowed. Public land is the land for all of the people. The state’s decision to remove faith from its public land goes against the idea of freedom of speech. That being said, these public lands should also include every other faith that decides to place something up in order to express their values.

Yes, this would include Atheism, considering if it didn’t, it would limit our freedom of expression.

That is the “War on Religion” Dr. Paul speaks of. And as an Atheist blogger, I believe he’s right. Public land is public land and must represent all viewpoints that desire to be placed there. 

As for his view on evolution, again, it won’t change his policy decisions: he does not believe in the state instilling values onto the people. Separation of Church and State is complete in his view; it isn’t just limited to protecting the state from faith. And he even says “it’s irrelevant”.

“But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.” See that? That’s pretty much directly stating that what each person believes is not a big issue… at all.

a-petro-manifesto:

thatlittleadorablemidgetchick:

A Petro Manifesto: Dear American Atheists Organization,I knew you guys were capable of…

a-petro-manifesto:

Dear American Atheists Organization,

I knew you guys were capable of some well executed motherfuckery, but this really takes the cake.

How many of you filing the lawsuit against the cross actually lost someone at the World Trade Center attacks?

Does it really affect you whether or not a cross is erected at a memorial where many people of different religions (Christianity included) died senselessly?

No, it fucking doesn’t. You’re not promoting equality, you’re being a cunt. I respect your beliefs (or lack thereof) but that also means you should respect other people’ beliefs  especially during their time of mourning.

Stop thinking you’re being clever. You’re making everyone hate you.

From one Agnostic to an Atheist:

Please shut the fuck up, sit the fuck down, and remember those lost.

With disgust,

Petro

It DOES affect us, actually.

Around half of the people who died were Christian. The rest were Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, etc.

Before now, NO, absolutely NO religious figure was supposed to be at Ground Zero. That was made clear. But of course, the only exception is a cross, because Christianity is ‘completely American!’ Any other religious figure or anything has been turned down.

Us Atheists want actual equality, not just promotion of Christianity and ignoring every other religion. It’s either all religious signs are shown, or none, in my eyes. And none is better.

I don’t believe it (no pun intended). You completely ignored the point I made.

You didn’t know anyone in the attacks.

The memorial isn’t about you. Get over yourself. The memorial is about the victims who died that day due to a senseless act of violence (and those who survive them). If any of the victims really had any qualms about this addition, they would have raised their voice. They obviously don’t, and unlike you, see the bigger picture behind this memorial.

I said it before and I’ll say it again:

IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU

I say this: the Cross is okay. I say that as an atheist. That being said, though, every other religious symbol requested should be put up as well. Especially if this memorial is public property. 

I’m sorry, if it’s public property, then it’s unconstitutional to only put up the Cross and exclude the other symbols. Even something to represent the atheist victims must be placed up. It’s an all-or-nothing deal with public property. No in-betweens.

Keeping that in mind, if those who are putting up the Cross are trying to exclude the others from expressing their grievances on public property, then a lawsuit is absolutely acceptable, because the Christians are then the ones, as petro puts it, being the cunts. They’re also infringing on the Separation of Church and State by requesting the favor of one faith over another. 

Though, I don’t know much about the situation nor am I aware if it’s private or public property. If it’s private, then everyone else needs to suck it up and accept that it’s private land; they need to, instead of complain, buy their own plot of land to place a memorial for those of the other faiths. Freedom of speech is all encompassing, so allow it to be present everywhere. Because it’s all or nothing, and I’m sure we all prefer “all.”

thoseboringpolitics:

Many of my fellow libertarian bloggers take Libertarianism to the measures of a stateless society. In principle, I am an anarchist. But after calling into Stefan Molyneux’s show a few times to discuss basic anarchist ideals I have decided that in practicality, anarchy would fail.

There is an ideal that believes in a stateless society that there would be multiple competing legal-system firms to include one’s self in voluntarily. This type of legal system would just flat-out be a failure. I’m not sure how popular this idea is, but conflicting opinions would simply exclude themselves from certain laws that would perhaps prevent rape or murder.

This agorist theory does include free market dispute resolutions, which I think if privatized on too large of a scale would be disastrous. Having private courts be in determination of law and its practice could be detrimental to the freedom of the people and the true freedom of markets. It could turn into the situation that the Federal Reserve has always been, which would use the force given to it by the government as a private entity to keep corporations evil. It wouldn’t be as big a scheme as the Fed, though, considering it wouldn’t mess with our money supply. But it would be much easier for other businesses to lobby to the court-system, giving a ton of profit to the executives without actually giving fair hearing to the people who bring a claim to courts. Government must provide a strong court system, and it must be expanded to be able to handle many claims at once. With this system, lawsuits would be a more frequent occurrence simply because it would be easier for one party to hold another party liable for either a small issue or a larger issue.

I do, however, hold some principles of privatized Dispute Resolution, which includes privatized police. A privatized police force is practical and allowable, though the explanation for such a thing is for another post.

A privatized military (also existing in an anarcho-capitalist society) on the other hand would be a nightmare. This is because the military would then be upheld by shareholders looking for a profit. To start, I think the idea of a profit-seeking business in the market of murder is completely immoral. At shareholders’ meetings, the company could be voted to gain profit by attacking the oil kingdoms and becoming very active around the world. Though, and here is where the second problem is found, where would the incentive be for any soldiers to take part in this? During “peace time”, soldiers will be payed to sit around and do nothing; when combat comes around, there is no patriotism or nationalism and pride to motivate the soldiers to stay and fight. That’s a necessary trait regarding military, and without it, you’ll have a hard time finding any willing people. The whole thing would be a mess, and if you did happen to make it work, it would be pretty bad ethically.

Even if one country became an anarchist society, every other country won’t follow suit, and they’ll blame the entire region for mishaps and atrocities caused by this private military. This is then a liability issue for the company which would a) become so rich they buy their ways out or b) scapegoat someone else or c) use their military to defend their money-conquest. Now even though I recognize the need for a government to provide a military, the military’s job should be at a minimum with a defense budget that would require zero income tax or corporate tax. The function of this military is purely defense. If we are attacked, we attack back. If we are invaded, we defend. And that’s it.

As for laws for people to follow, I believe only in laws that protect a direct victim. This means rape, murder, and any crime dealing with aggression. These would be the only laws people would need to follow. The privatized police force would be of use here in carrying out their duties. All other “crimes”, deemed crimes by current law, could be solved in a court or totally forgotten when the laws are abandoned.

Moving on to economics briefly. Liability is a wonderful word used to begin an explanation/justification for Austrian economics; disputes would be resolved with cases in courts, whether it is just a claim against a person or a case with need of a lawyer in response to a business’ behavior. The government would not regulate business or support the person claiming a business has liability, but simply give a hearing for the prosecutor and make a decision. It’s just one simple way an industry would have to keep honest as well as at a modest size; keeping liability costs lost in court low is a good thing for business, so it would be in their best interest not to screw with consumers.

I do fervently believe in a free-market. This means entirely free with zero regulations on business practices because I believe, as many libertarians do, that consumers can and will regulate the economy more effectively than government. But in an anarchist society, a business could lie about their revenues, outputs, costs, stock information, etc. I believe the only reason a business must be regulated is for a business to be totally honest in their accounting and finance reports. Giving the consumers enough information so that the free-market can regulate itself is what is needed. Corporations would then be transparent but still allowed to practice whatever they want. The argument of liability, costs for businesses, etc. would not work if the businesses had the ability to lie to the public. 

As a note on my debate style: I largely take the utilitarian approach to arguing for free-markets, rather than using the Non-Aggression Principle as an argument. Logicallypositive describes the situation with the NAP the best, stating that it’s usually used as an axiom and as a fact rather than a personal worldview, which is what it is.

So where do anarchists and I differ in summation?

• I advocate for a state-run defensive military, not allowed to go beyond its means other than direct defense. The budget should be low enough for funding to come only from a small sales tax. In a booming capitalistic economy, it would cover more than the military budget.
• I advocate for a state-run court system that could take many hearings a day, from small-claims to class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits would be a key-role in consumers and employees regulating the economy. Class-action lawsuits are more effective than government-supported unions which are completely immoral (also for another post). The courts may be state-run but the actual process would be a free-market process.
• The only laws on people would be those to protect people from aggression: murder, rape, etc. All other laws abolished. If there is an issue, let the courts settle it. This would eliminate jails in the country to a much smaller number (they would still exist in my ideal society, as I oppose capital punishment).
• The only regulation would be to make businesses disclose information to allow for a consumer-regulated economy.

Four very small roles of government all upheld by a small sales tax. With a complete removal of public-sector regulation, the negative effects of a mixed economy would be removed (because it would no longer exist!) Of course, with the State around, it could always come back and allow businesses to become corrupt again. This is why, by principle, I am an anarchist. We’d need government reform to prevent this from happening. Though, this would be tricky to do without also removing any voice of the people, which is imperative to society to keep around. Freedom in all parts of life is what will drive us forward, not regulation.

For my new followers since the original date of this post.

logicallypositive:

conservativebrew:

poorrichardsnews:

That’s right folks, the ever lovable truther/communist Van Jones went on tax payer funded NPR (not to be confused with PRN—Poor Richard’s News) Sunday to talk up his new anti-tea party group. Did I mention that your tax dollars fund NPR? Did I mention that Van Jones is a communist?

From…

 “I don‘t know how these people get a chance to be called patriots when everything they say about America’s government is how terrible, how awful it is.”  I guess Mr. Jones forgot that it took Michelle Obama OVER 30 YEARS for her to finally be, “proud of her country.”

You all know I’m not a communist but I mean what is wrong with airing different viewpoints?

I have to agree here. Though, in general I wish NPR wouldn’t receive public funding, I enjoy who they have on and what they air. And really, what is wrong with airing a few different viewpoints and outlooks? Nothing. First Amendment.

stfufauxminists:

^ Thiiiiiis. Also the massive amount of triggering photos that trolls put in that tag when they think they’re being clever. “Oh lol let’s put images of women being beaten and killed in the feminism tag, that’ll show ‘em that we live in an equal society and feminism isn’t relevant anymore, heh bitches”. 

Oh, and also the fact that there are some genuinely awesome posts that get tagged there and that deserve recognition for being cool. 

Wrong… they post those photos to express their view of the world. They’re protesting those types of actions by putting up those kinds of photos. Not everyone is out to get feminists, you know. Some people just put up the pictures to show the state of how poorly some people are treated.