When the Dems come to power soon, Americans will learn what it means, as de La Boetie wrote, to “have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own.”

Some conservatives argue that we should care more about “culture” than the selection of goods at Walmart.

News flash, statists: culture consists entirely of what’s for sale in the stores.

Every aspect of culture is bought and sold on the market. The greater our prosperity, the more and better culture we will enjoy.

Vox is objecting to Amazon’s low prices and fast shipping as “anti-competitive” and “bad for the environment” now. There’s just no pleasing these people.

I mean, doesn’t this guy understand that competition is a dynamic process? It’s a ceaseless succession of entrepreneurial actions and reactions.

The “Walmarts, Targets, or pharmacy chains like CVS, Rite Aid, or Walgreens” he cares about will not stand still. They will themselves be forced to innovate and improve. Amazon’s success is not guaranteed even in the short run, let along longer run in which its competitors try to counter Amazon’s moves.

Walmart, etc. are not out of business yet. They have been threatened, and now they must hustle.

As these companies scramble to adapt, they, too, will have to lower prices and improve quality, or do something else entirely. This never-ending competitive process will continue to raise the people’s standard of living.

As for the “environment,” the author’s beef should be with economic progress as such, not with Amazon. If he is a misanthrope, surely there are more efficient ways of destroying the human species than siccing anti-trust lawyers onto poor Amazon.

Some feminists seem to dislike men catcalling them.

But then why are they being attractive if not to attract men?

They don’t grasp that being hit on is an undeserved privilege of pretty girls of which plain girls are utterly deprived.

Be uglier, and your “problem” will go away.

If the state tomorrow outlawed vanilla ice cream and forced each person to eat a pint of chocolate ice cream every day, the Supreme Court would defer to the state’s “police powers,” saying as it did in Nebbia v. New York that the state’s “authority to make regulations of commerce is… absolute. … the private right must yield to the public need.”

But as for gay marriage, oh no, it’s a sacred universal human right, a choice as private and personal as between vanilla and choc… oh wait.

Speaking of gay marriage, the correct way to argue United States v. Windsor and similar cases would have been to deny that gays are capable of forming “committed or intimate relationships.”

For there is in gay “relationships” nothing but lust; but there are no laws against gay fornication or sodomy or promiscuity. Gays were satisfied before. They could not have anything else they might have wanted not according to man-made law but simply as a natural fact.

Their aim was not to uplift gay relations, because that was impossible; there is no leveling up; it was to do something much easier, namely to level down: to undermine and debase straight marriage, indeed to destroy the traditional family.

It might seem that this argument proves that a childless and loveless heterosexual marriage would also be prohibited. People could not then marry for “convenience” or money. But those things are at least possible in a traditional marriage, and it is indeed not for the state to judge such personal matters as love.

Those things are manifestly impossible for gay marriages which means there is reason for the state not to recognize them as valid.