TakeYouToTasker

Not at all. I said that for your benefit, because I believe world events are instructive, and provide deep insights into why the protection of First Amendment rights are sacrosanct.

No, the FBI police have it under lock and key.

Because memes are a form of political speech which simplify complex ideas, and lampoon the ruling class. Again, the EU is the antithesis of political freedom. Why would anyone be surprised that they want to further curtail speech as it suits their ends? I'm honestly a bit surprised you aren't advocating for them putting the dissenters on lists and purging them.

Yes, but they can contract polio for free.

I can't wait until !@#$s start burning down their houses with these trying to de-ice their gutters.

@Juror#8 Our backgrounds are more similar than you might imagine. My family was plunged into poverty some time right around my first birthday. My mother grew up homeless in Las Vegas. The oldest daughter of alcoholics, my maternal grandfather a gambling addict who had his paycheck spent on the blackjack tables before he bought a loaf of bread. They lived in a cave he dug out in the hidden side of an underpass. They upgraded to a small camping trailer after a years time. My father worked as a carpenter when he got back from Viet Nam (a time which left him with deep mental and emotional scars he's never recovered from), until the trussing of a house fell on him breaking his back. The construction company held out on paying him restitution and tied him up in a legal battle he couldn't afford, until he finally settled for far less than was even required to pay his medical bills because his family was starving. My mother supported us for the next 4 years on tips working in a ****ty dinner while he slowly nursed himself back to health. We lived in the slums in West Vegas. I didn't know it until I as older, but my mother made most of my clothes herself because my parents couldn't afford them. Like you, I received second hand books and homemade wooden blocks for Christmas. There were other Christmas' where I went without. I was the first member of my family to go to college. My work ethic and my inability to view myself as a victim are what allowed me to climb out and break the cycle. They are, in retrospect, better than any Christmas present I ever could have received. I know what a woat is. I know what it's like to go hungry. It's one of the reasons I believe so strongly in the philosophy I espouse. The truth is that I don't expect most people born into situations like yours, or mine, to pull themselves out. And for those who do, they'll be replaced by some other poor bastards who fall into poverty. It's not a problem that can ever be solved for the masses by someone else. It's a problem that can only be solved for the individual by the individual themselves.

Not enough randomly capitalized words.

@snafu @LeviF91 Please understand that I'm not taking the position you're bearing down on. There are many reasons that Sovereign Citizens are as problematic for an organized society, as an organized society is for a Sovereign Citizen; so please don't take what I'm saying as a full throated endorsement of them. What I believe, is that there is some degree of validity to a person staking a claim to themselves as a free person on a moral and philosophical level, and that it is always something to consider in any nation which strives to live as a "free people". As such, I think it is useful not to be completely dismissive of every claim a SC makes.

That's not a solution. That's not even an admission that we have a problem. It's political hackery implying that conservative should suffer the political consequences of cleaning up yet another massive economic and social problem caused by progressives. You don't care about the people who are going to suffer. You don't care about the future children of this nation born under the yoke of a tax burden assessed to them which they had no say in creating. You actually relish the idea of both, because it has the potential to harm conservatives at the ballot box.

Sovereign Citizens fascinate me for several reasons, the first of which, is on principle, they are morally correct. The notion that a person born is immediately justly subservient to a government structure is hard to palate; especially if they later in life decide that they wish to be truly free. The idea that it is criminal (or at least runs counter to civil charges) for a person seeking to eat to fish, or for a person needing a roof over their head to build shelter on un-owned, un-improved land is problematic on some level. They also serve as the "canary in the coal mine" and demonstrate the truly tyrannical nature of the state. Ridiculous as many find their claims to be, they demonstrate that the state is more than willing to use violence against peaceful individuals seeking nothing more than for the state to leave them alone.

Venezuela's Long Road to Ruin. A quality Op-Ed from the WSJ.

Apparently the prize in this morning's Cracker Jack box was a legal dissertation.

It's actually even dopier than that. We've been told that gender is purely a social construct, and that there are no differences between men and women. And then the same people who told us this impose legislation which draws distinct differences between men and women. This is all you need to know about the validity to these people's ideas.

About as irrelevant as Drew Bledsoe's opinion of the Louisiana Purchase.

Please make a list of countries in which unfettered capitalism has made the country unsustainable. Property rights, private ownership, and individual rights are hallmarks of capitalism, not limitations of it.

I think the point, which flies over your head, is that a society which affords an individual the opportunity to succeed and become wealthy, regardless of their ethnic back ground, if they have the requisite skill, hard work, and sustained achievement in their field, is not oppressive.

You disagree with the idea that individuals who work their way through difficult problems with logic, instead of feeling their way through them and expressing their ideas in terms of emotions, are more likely to have a firmer understanding of the subject matter?

Which is why the strongest societies are constructed on the foundational principals of natural rights, protecting the individual against such occurrences.

The individual is more important than society. We are not bees. Each individual is unique, with their own thoughts and desires, and respond best to those thoughts and desires as the amount of freedom they have increases.

That's a terrible question, and I reject it's underlying assumptions, as it assumes a totally backwards relationship between citizen and government.

Unfettered capitalism encourages capital formation, which seed the ground for economic growth and raises everyone's standard of living. In America our poor have an obesity epidemic and lifestyles saturated in luxury items. The other conditions you describe are the realities of technological innovations of the day. Capitalism didn't "force children into labor markets" it pulled them out of the fields and provided them a wage, which removed their families out of the destitute poverty of subsistence farming. A secondary point I'll build onto the back of the first, is that child labor laws came to pass after the overwhelming majority of child labor had been naturally ended by capitalism, as increased productivity and innovation drove production and earnings, allowing adults to do 100% of the earning to support their families. The respectively few children labor laws removed from working did so at their peril, as it made it impossible to their parents to afford them, and drove an orphanage boom. To the third point: breaking of labor unions by force is not a capitalistic principle. Capitalism is rooted in freedom of association. It does not mean all things are permissible.

That is untrue.

Of course. Over time LBJ's policies, originally targeted at the black community, have spread into other communities and are impacting them in the same way. Fatherless children born out of wedlock are on the rise across the entire spectrum of race, because our federal policy incentivizes it, and our culture no longer considers it shameful. The conversation was about inner city children, however, which tend to be black and minority communities, while white poverty tends to pool in rural areas.

Under two circumstances: 1) When the taxes are not voluntary. (consumption taxes are the only just form of taxation, as the citizen determines his own rate of taxation on the micro level) 2) When the taxes are used to spend on services which do not have a shared group utility. (programs targeted to advantage certain individuals or groups at the expense of another or others)