Things to expect on this blog: Austrian School economics; Libertarian politics; guns; Anglo-Saxon heathenry; and maybe the occasional rant.
Machiavelli (via pharaonicfro)
Sounds like good survival advice for a breakdown of society. FerFAL should really have quoted this in his book, since he’s of that mind.
(Yes, I know Machiavelli’s context here. I studied his book for a whole semester in my last year of university. I’m deliberately taking it out of context to plug a book I deem to be very important and worth reading.)
Before all else, be armed.
So ever since Russia took Crimea I've been watching some certain stocks. Granted, the stock market has been a period of growth, but this particular stock started to blow up once it was clear the Russians wouldn't be leaving. These Fuel Cell stocks have doubled since the end of Feb and I don't think they're going down. Any strategic importance of investing in Fuel Cell Technology?
Could you give me a little more information? I’d like to take a look at the tickers for myself!
I think what we’re seeing, given the info given by anon, is this:
Much (possibly even most) of the oil and natural gas being used by the EU comes from Russia or from/through Ukraine. Since any issues between the West and Russia, especially over Ukraine, could disrupt oil & gas supplies to the EU, it’s a fair bet to think that there will be greater demand in the EU for non-oil/gas energy sources. Fuel cells will likely factor into the systems using these alternative energy sources.
All this said, I’m not too knowledgeable about fuel cell tech, so I’m conjecturing big time.
Look what they did to the imports of Korean War garands…
i can see that taking place
Me too. The scary thing is, some of this is true. A lot of people don’t realize that a “sniper rifle” is the exact same as most hunting rifles. Yes, they are high powered (compared to your normal AR or AK). It can penetrate body armor (just like most centerfire rifles). That doesn’t make them bad, but don’t think for a second that some people won’t try to use that against gun owners.
THEY CAN PRY MY MOSIN FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
.38 snubbies are too small and concealable for them, and hunting rifles are too big and powerful. It doesn’t matter what gun it is, the ban-pushers will find or invent some reason why it’s evil.
ITT: comparing abortion with guns even though they’re not remotely comparable in any way, oh boy here we go again.
We’re told all the time “If you don’t want a gun, don’t own one. Don’t infringe on my constitutional right as a human being to own one!” And gun owners like that Chuck Yeager dude my husband used to watch on Youtube all the time go nuts and threaten violence on anyone who might take away their “right to bare arms.”
Chuck Yeager is one of the best pilots ever and the first pilot with a confirmed supersonic flight, the person you’re thinking of is James Yeager.
And he has a right to “bare” arms. That’s why he always wears those edgy tshirts. (get it?)
These are more commonly so the people who will take away your body autonomy, your right as a human being to choose wither or not you want to rent out your body for the next 9 to 10 months to another being when you can’t even force a dead person to donate organs even to save a life. These are the people who basically tell you “Fuck your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” especially if it means you don’t shell out an average of 10k for the delivery alone if you can’t get insurance, especially if you don’t want children, can’t safely have children, are not financially ready to support children, ect.
To play Devil’s Advocate, there is almost zero recourse for a father to avoid losing his financial autonomy for 18 years (sometimes even if he’s not the real father because fuck men, right?) and men caught trying to slip abortion pills into the system of the woman they impregnated get jail sentence.
So forgive me for being skeptical of your comparison between a fetus and a dead body.
Now, I have surprisingly very few issues with abortion even though I recognize what it entails, and it’s not pretty. But assuming you support the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, why do you draw an arbitrary line between your right to life and the right to life of another human being? Why do you draw a line between a woman’s right to pursuit happiness by refusing their parental duties while men can get fucked over by their parental duties and lose that same right?
People who don’t like abortions? They shouldn’t get one. I can’t have one, I’m not telling anyone they can’t have one and I’m not forcing anyone to have one (even though women can do the opposite - they can kill my child even if I want it, or keep my child even if I don’t want it).
It really gets me mad when people start comparing guns to abortions. It doesn’t help that you decided to generalize a group composed of millions of people, which includes women, men, liberals, conservatives, atheists, agnostics and religious people. I also have a problem with people who want all the freedoms for themselves and forget that there’s other human beings around.
We have enough issues with people trying to steer gun lobby groups and gun rallies into religious conservative circle jerks, I would appreciate if issues like abortion stayed away from gun topics.
So you can thank yourself next time you feel your rights being tightened because you managed to piss off the people who could have agreed with you.
This. ALL of this. Especially the bit at the end.
If you watch anything today — watch this.
stefan molyneux breaks it down on statists #emotionalblackmail
Not even queueing this. It’s way too important. Usually I’m not a fan of Molyneux, but this… this is special.
Molyneux is such a joke. “Strawman stawman strawman prison rape threats emotional argument stawman”.
First, ask Irwin Schiff about this. He’s been in prison for years for nothing more than refusing to fund government activities he found morally repugnant. So Molyneux’s argument here isn’t really a strawman, seeing how it’s actually happening to real people.
Second, are you attempting to justify compulsory taxation? If your tax money is going only to good purposes (big “if” there), then why does there need to be a threat of criminal punishment and imprisonment if you don’t pay them? Moreover, how does that threat become more justified as you change what the money is used for?
Government, however desirable or undesirable, is force. Platitudes about “democracy”, “the will of the people”, and the “social contract” notwithstanding, you can’t opt-out. You can opt-out of being ruled by one government, but your only alternative is to be ruled by another government. You can vote out one government, but that involves voting in another. You can’t selectively obey laws, flouting those you find morally repugnant, without being punished by it. Usually, this punishment involves threats of force, mostly during the arrest process. So your only choices are obedience or punishment. Morality and ethics don’t enter into it; it’s entirely a power dynamic.
So he gets emotional and passionate about it. He’s right to. He feels that, in order to follow his concience, he has to risk awful consequences: arrest, confiscation of property, imprisonment (with all the atrocities that happen in prison included); all because he morally disagrees with dubiously-justified wars overseas, the drug war, and the blindingly misguided economic policies that lead to greater poverty and less upward mobility. How is that possibly justified?