Bernie and AOC, as part of their Green New Deal, seek to renovate the government “projects,” i.e., state-owned housing.
Of course, all “projects,” i.e., depraved foul hellholes (abandon all hope all who rot there), ought to be razed to the ground utterly, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, abolished 100%.
The zombies infesting these horrible lands must be cleansed with fire — of demolition explosives.
As Rothbard pointed out in Ethics of Liberty, in the case of bribery, it is only the taker of the bribe who is guilty of violating his contract with his employer.
He who bribes is completely innocent:
Legally, there should be a property right to pay a bribe, but not to take one. It is only the taker of a bribe who should be prosecuted.
In contrast, liberals tend to hold the bribe-giver as somehow more reprehensible, as in some way “corrupting” the taker. In that way they deny the free will and the responsibility of each individual for his own actions.
“Higher education in this country aspires to be a meritocracy. Those who work the hardest or make the best grades rightfully get accepted into the best schools,” said Judge Gordon. What planet is this guy from? There is no “meritocracy”; they give affirmative-action race-quotas victimist privileges to the various “diverse.” Meritocracy was destroyed long ago in this country.
The “troops” are lazy parasites who unjustly murder foreign people at the empire’s bidding.
When have they ever thanked the taxpayers for enabling them to lead their worthless and violent lifestyles?
What’s the point of economic progress if it will inevitably be subverted and used by the state to crush and enslave human beings?
For example, progress will only make the government’s tortures more cruel and painful; their weapons, more demonic and destructive; their control, more sophisticated and oppressive.
Soon enough, they may invent and inject us with a virus that will cause us to love and worship the Big Brother. Why, you ask? Because they can.
But the alternative, which is perfect stagnation, is even more inhuman and depressing. It is giving up the game before it even began. We have no choice but to embrace improvement and try to abolish the state before it annihilates us all.
Democracy deserves to die in darkness, as, like all state power, it’s radically opposed to true natural human rights.
It’s my own view, but I prefer Republican fascism to Democratic (and “democratic”) socialism.
“Socialist” taxer-looter Kshama Sawant won the city council election in Seattle.
She must’ve been right.
While relentlessly pursuing power, Warren pretends to be a pathetic victim of “sexist” men.
“Progressives” understand progress simply as chaos.
It’s transvaluation of all values, endless upheaval, war, revolution, and churning of society for its own sake.
But chaos on its own generates only random change, not progress. And since random change for the worse is much more probable that random change for the better, progressives end up favoring social retrogression and decay.
True progress, on the other hand, is creative advance. This chaos operates within order, both moral and economic. There is a balance between stability and change, wherein destructive chaos is neutralized, while creative chaos is encouraged and thrives.
This balance is achieved most sublimely within laissez-faire capitalism.
Progressives intend on “winning control of a Democratic Party that is presently dominated by procedurally conservative institutionalists, winning free and fair elections, and then passing laws,” says Eric Levitz.
What an orgasmic experience it must be, to “pass laws.” There must be more laws, to control people more precisely. No one will be able to move without breaking some of Levitz’s “laws.” Ratchet up the punishments, too. No one is to do anything new; everyone will do tomorrow and forever exactly what he did today, since deviation from routine will be, what else? against the “laws.”
Levitz does not entertain the idea that the best path to general welfare is to repeal laws.
“Progressives represent minoritarian interests who are disempowered in the economy and civil society (the poor, nonwhite, and undocumented),” he goes on.
But in a fully free market society, there are no “disempowered” people. There are no legal barriers to success. There are few barriers to success even in our statist mixed economy. The poor, nonwhite, etc., any more than the rich whites, do not need to be represented, because they face no unjust threats to their welfare. There is no need for any class or race warfare, because most of our interests within social cooperation are harmonious. There is no such thing as “racial justice”; it’s gibberish; what Levitz imagines “just” is on the contrary merely unjust destructionism.
It’s also a huge and pointless distraction from the fact that it is the state and indeed its “laws” that are responsible for the breaking of the market harmony.
It is true that the freedom to succeed entails the possibility of failure. But under capitalism, one’s failure is usually one’s own fault. It is useless to blame, for example, white people for the flaws of blacks. The cynical view that the winners succeeded by illegitimate means, while the losers failed because they are unjustly oppressed does not convince. It is disgraceful and wrong to feed the hateful resentment of the unfortunate losers by lying to them that their failure is the fault of “society” and by falsely promising to them future bliss and revenge.
“Passing laws” is an inappropriate means to helping the “disempowered.”