“Iran says it will not surrender even if it is bombed,” says Reuters.

This is hopeless. The US government has gotten exceedingly efficient at destroying small countries, especially those it has previously disarmed.

Note the striking sentence in the article (emphasis added):

U.S. President Donald Trump restored U.S. sanctions on Iran last year and tightened them this month, ordering all countries to halt imports of Iranian oil or face sanctions of their own.

The empire is getting crazier and more implausible every day.

Walter Block’s correspondent S writes:

In particular, I find persuasive Stephan Kinsella’s argument that one voluntarily assumes positive obligations if one puts another in a dangerous situation.

If so, hasn’t some combination of the mother and the medical staff placed the evicted fetus in a dangerous situation? Must some or all of them be obliged to care for the fetus?

Well, there are only two general places where the fetus could be: inside the womb and outside it. It may be true that being inside is safer than being outside. But the fetus does not have the right to be inside. If the mother evicts him, as she presumably has the right to do, then he must end up outside.

Since coming to be “in a dangerous situation” is entirely unavoidable and happens not because of the mother’s negligence or ill will but as a matter of logical necessity or essence or meaning of “eviction,” the mother cannot be faulted for it and because of that fact incurs no positive obligations.

Thus, if there were 100 different places the fetus could end up at upon being evicted, some of which were more or less dangerous than others, then it might be incumbent upon the mother to pick the safest place.

In fact, it is an explicit aspect of Blockian evictionism that if a foster guardian were to come forward with an announcement of his intention to adopt and care for the fetus, the mother would be duty-bound to deliver the fetus to him. In such a case, there would indeed be multiple choices of post-eviction locations.

But in general there is only 1 place, the “outside.”

S’s argument then is:

1. The mother ought not to endanger the fetus.
2. But eviction entails endangerment.
3. Therefore, evictions are unlawful.

But I’d counter with:

1. Eviction is lawful (to be defended perhaps with other arguments).
2. Admittedly, eviction entails endangerment.
3. Therefore, endangerment is lawful, as well.

“Kamala Harris proposes equal pay measure to close gender gap.”

Hey Kamala, the consumers, including you — for you, too, are a consumer!, do not ultimately value the services of women as much as the services of men.

They are not willing to pay as much for stuff made by women than they are willing to pay for stuff made by men.

The difference has to do with productivity, specializations, child-bearing, differences between male and female genius, etc.

“Corporations” are in this instance just middlemen and have little influence over this fact:

Wage rates are ultimately determined by the value which the wage earner’s fellow citizens attach to his services and achievements.

Labor is appraised like a commodity, not because the entrepreneurs and capitalists are hardhearted and callous, but because they are unconditionally subject to the supremacy of the consumers of which today the earners of wages and salaries form the immense majority.

The consumers are not prepared to satisfy anybody’s pretensions, presumptions, and self-conceit. They want to be served in the cheapest way. (HA, 610)

Case — freaking — closed.

The “equal pay” proposal is illustrative not so much because of its absurdity on so many levels, but because of the complete breakdown of basic morals in the US.

Private property rights apparently count for nothing. They can be violated at the state’s will for whatever crazy reason. There is no limit to the government’s power. We are being ruled by gods who imagine themselves authors of nature, laying down their insane laws with carefree indulgence.

“Equal pay” today, total expropriation and confiscation tomorrow, because why not if the gods so will?

I had an exchange recently with a Jewish victimist fanatic in which I quipped that “often, Jews deserve their anti-Semites.” He asked why. I pointed to the little post by Walter Block.

He objected that the proper thing to do was not to resent Jews many of whom are socialists, but to resent socialists many of whom “happen to be” Jews.

I agreed and joked that the connection between Jews and their atrocious politics must be “totally mysterious.”

A hysterical barrage of abuse followed. Now to clarify, I was not of course implying any direct “genetic” link. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say that the Jews’ super-high IQ and clannish insular inward- and past-looking culture make it more likely that they will fancy themselves central planners, eager to run the economy “scientifically.”

It’s like that Seinfeld episode:

Leo: Move back with Lydia?
Jerry: C’mon, you’re lucky to have anybody.
Leo: Last week you told me I was in my prime, I should be swinging.
Jerry: Swinging? What are you, out of your mind? Look at you, you’re disgusting. You’re bald, you’re paunchy, all kinds of sounds are emanating from your body twenty-four hours a day. If there’s a woman that can take your presence for more than ten consecutive seconds, you should hang on to her like grim death. Which is not far off, by the way.
Leo: But she’s an anti-Semite.
Jerry: Can you blame her?

Exactly. Clean your own house first, my Jewish brethren, before joining in to the virtue-signaling hate-fest.

It’s perfectly fine for this guy to concern himself with “what’s good for the Jews.” But I’ll tell him what’s most definitely not good for the Jews, and that’s falsely accusing random innocent people he hates of “anti-Semitism.”

It must give him great joy to smear folks and ruin their careers — a favorite tactic of socialists and neocons (but I repeat myself).

Or perhaps he’s just a nutjob who sincerely sees “anti-Semitism” everywhere.

Sicko National Review manages to be both monstrous and tedious at the same time.

For example, one article accuses the left of anti-Bolton bias. Are you serious? Who cares about Bolton? A war with Iran will leave millions dead and Iran in ruins. If Bolton is plotting an attack, he ought to be assassinated immediately.

You read this right. Let’s kill this baby Hitler before he grows up.

Another demands that we hate China and its tech companies.

Allowing these companies to operate undisturbed in the U.S. would pose serious national-security risks. …

They pose a threat to the U.S. because of their ties to the PRC, whose ambitions of espionage and cyber-warfare are no secret.

That is your reason to cut off trade? Every nation spies on every other. Who cares about “state secrets”? The state should have no secrets, anyway. Let the mutual spying commence, as long as there are peace and free trade.

Yet another objects to the Dems voting “in favor of legislation that would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ as protected classes.” It does so on virtually irrelevant grounds, something about sports. (It is obvious that nobody cares about women’s sports, least of all women.) In any case, you worthless cons, how soon after this law is enacted will you begin conserving it?

Oh, but they have a few articles opposing socialism. How heroic.

I’m not sure 100% who is speaking here, David Gordon, Anthony Flood, or C.L.R. James, but:

The Stalinists, James claimed, viewed blacks as subordinate shock troops of a prospective revolution rather than independent actors, and this Stalinist line Aptheker faithfully followed.

The Dems view blacks exactly this way, too.

For example, the crimes that blacks, damaged and weaponized by the welfare state and drug war, commit are just one more way of shocking the bourgeoisie.

My immediate family, myself included, were born in the Soviet Union, but I was largely spared the atheistic indoctrination.

My mother and uncle were not so lucky. But it’s not that they are atheists — they don’t know enough about God to deny that He exists with any competence. They couldn’t tell God from a hole in the ground.

They are “apatheists” — they don’t care whether God exists. God could appear before them in glory, and they’d say, “I don’t know who you are, and I don’t care. Scram, you.”

As apatheists, they cannot of course claim that God does not exist (and they don’t), because they don’t know what the word “God” means. “God does not exist” is for them as meaningless as “Splorg does not exist.” And they have found no reason in their lives to entertain the idea of God.

I can’t even talk to them about this stuff, because they find it irritating and uninteresting. I can’t unleash any proofs on them — the arguments for God’s existence are for fellow scholars, not for non-philosophers. They seem “happy” as apatheists and decent people. They consider the Catholic “rituals” to be preposterous magical incantations. There is no angle I could try to make them wonder.

I don’t know, perhaps with this kind of “invincible indifference,” they have a better chance of salvation that I.

William Lane Craig quotes Richard Wurmbrand:

I have heard one [communist] torturer even say, “I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.” He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.

Think about it the next time you are tempted to ascribe “good intentions” to Bernie Sanders.

Syllogism:

1. Jews are very smart (not only true but a commonplace and well-known by all).
2. Some Jews are evil (true of any reasonably-sized random group).
3. Therefore, some Jews are smart evildoers (think Bernie Sanders and Alan Dershowitz).

So then, again, these evil Jews are smart. Or we’ll say, clever. Or even: diabolically clever.

Hence Farrakhan’s latest, “And I’m here to separate the good Jews from the Satanic Jews,” is entirely reasonable and a noble cause.

Bernie and AOC are not so stupid as to ignore the “unintended consequences” of their plan to cap credit card interest at 15%.

They are fully aware that many, perhaps all, government interventions are cumulative and are means to a step-by-step transition to socialism.

The masses will applaud them for this “benevolent” act; when the perverse consequences of this intervention come to the fore, “capitalism” will predictably be blamed and more interventions to “fix” the new problems, lined up.

Eventually, the market will be almost fully paralyzed, at which point “capitalism” will be declared to “have failed,” with socialism being our only salvation.

It’ll work, too.