Eden Trace

Hola from Kentucky- novice artist, gardener, farmer, nature-loving outdoor enthusiast with a love of family, creativity and good people. Blogging things I find interesting or beautiful and reading blogs that I find interesting or beautiful. I love to share and explore new perspectives with open and like-minded people.

I'm also a big Tolkien fan. If you're delving deeper into his works and attempting the Silmarillion look for this user on YouTube and watch her guides: bandersnatchftw

December 19, 2013 at 10:16pm
64 notes
Reblogged from aaronfunandmental

Direct quote from an AnCap →

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

If you want to know how *I* would feel, you should probably ask me directly next time, and actually establish parameters for your hypothetical situation.

I’ll oblige. How do you feel? I’ll get the popcorn. Long winded fascist apologies fascinate me.

Again, parameters?
How would I feel if right now, in our present socioeconomic construct in the United States, a baker refused to make a KKK cake?

I’d condone the same consequences they’d receive for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple:

Social shaming and ostracism, and economic boycott by ethical shoppers.

So you understand the principle but don’t want it to apply evenly or you think it should be legislated to apply to favored notions? I’m honestly attempting to understand your fear of the marketplace of ideas.

Not baking someone a cake does not have the same consequences as forcing someone to freeze to death in the cold.

The harm isn’t proportionate, so neither should the measures taken to prevent and/or rectify it be proportionate.

Who is forcing people to freeze to death in the cold? I’m curious. And if this were a problem why do you think that contemporary western civilization would allow it to persist?

You are using a non-existent extreme to justify oppression. This is a familiar tactic of statists and has been for as long as the state has existed.

Lenin allowed millions upon millions of Ukrainian kulaks to starve and freeze in the name of an egalitarian utopia. Hitler’s crimes against humanity are equally well documented.

When has a free society actively participated in allowing people to freeze to death?

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. It is on you given your arguments sanctioning state power.

Your suppositions aside, why should I allow coercive groupthink given the track record?

Edit: Just checked out your blog. You need to remove the self-styled description of “Anarchist”. In light of this discourse alone it is a laughably bad descriptor.

http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1309

Yes, how utterly un-anarchistic of me to believe the rights of an individual precede the “rights” of hierarchical capitalist corporations.

A capitalist corporation killed this transgendered woman? I read your article and missed that. I would like to abolish corporations but I would like for you to tell me which one killed her.

In a city with a metro population of 1.25 million +/- there were 136 people that “died on the streets of Austin in the last 12 months” according to that article. This says nothing about the cause of death or why they were on the streets on the first place. Is it sad? Probably. Is it something that you can justify crafting compulsory legislation over based on that information? Apparently so, you are not an anarchist.

Homelessness and mental illness are undeniably linked and the question is far more complex than forcing “group A” to associate with “group B”. Often a homeless person is homeless by their illness through choice. I would even dare to suggest that the transgendered homeless woman and perennial political candidate probably suffered from mental illness.

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html

This is my number one problem with statists like yourself. You are lazy intellectually and you readily give up logic for the problem to be twisted to a political end. I.E. is the problem homeless transgender victimization or mental illness? WIth the information provided its easily arguable that it is mental illness. You latch on to a tragedy in a self-serving manner and you use it as a reason for blanket oppression.

It’s this intellectually bankrupt nature that has allowed for tyrants in the past and it is why I rejected your argument before. You have justified the rejection with your wild and unsubstantiated claims and projections.

LOL

And you fail. A self anointed anarchist postulates an argument for legislation based on an isolated incident founded on a questionable premiss at best. You never even considered alternatives. Bankrupt and a fraud. Cheers.

Never argued for legislation.

I pointed out the morally bankrupt beliefs of ancaps who value corporate hierarchy over individual rights.

It’s like I have to spoon feed these children, sheesh.

No gods, no masters. Next time you’re arguing your sense of morality with anarchists while claiming to be one consider that.

I know quite a few anarcho-capitalists and none of them advocate corporation and all stand in opposition to corporatism.

8:27pm
64 notes
Reblogged from aaronfunandmental

Direct quote from an AnCap →

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

 

If you want to know how *I* would feel, you should probably ask me directly next time, and actually establish parameters for your hypothetical situation.

I’ll oblige. How do you feel? I’ll get the popcorn. Long winded fascist apologies fascinate me.

Again, parameters?
How would I feel if right now, in our present socioeconomic construct in the United States, a baker refused to make a KKK cake?

I’d condone the same consequences they’d receive for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple:

Social shaming and ostracism, and economic boycott by ethical shoppers.

So you understand the principle but don’t want it to apply evenly or you think it should be legislated to apply to favored notions? I’m honestly attempting to understand your fear of the marketplace of ideas.

Not baking someone a cake does not have the same consequences as forcing someone to freeze to death in the cold.

The harm isn’t proportionate, so neither should the measures taken to prevent and/or rectify it be proportionate.

Who is forcing people to freeze to death in the cold? I’m curious. And if this were a problem why do you think that contemporary western civilization would allow it to persist?

You are using a non-existent extreme to justify oppression. This is a familiar tactic of statists and has been for as long as the state has existed.

Lenin allowed millions upon millions of Ukrainian kulaks to starve and freeze in the name of an egalitarian utopia. Hitler’s crimes against humanity are equally well documented.

When has a free society actively participated in allowing people to freeze to death?

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. It is on you given your arguments sanctioning state power.

Your suppositions aside, why should I allow coercive groupthink given the track record?

Edit: Just checked out your blog.  You need to remove the self-styled description of “Anarchist”.  In light of this discourse alone it is a laughably bad descriptor.

http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1309

Yes, how utterly un-anarchistic of me to believe the rights of an individual precede the “rights” of hierarchical capitalist corporations.

A capitalist corporation killed this transgendered woman? I read your article and missed that. I would like to abolish corporations but I would like for you to tell me which one killed her.

In a city with a metro population of 1.25 million +/- there were 136 people that “died on the streets of Austin in the last 12 months” according to that article.  This says nothing about the cause of death or why they were on the streets on the first place.  Is it sad?  Probably.  Is it something that you can justify crafting compulsory legislation over based on that information?  Apparently so, you are not an anarchist.

Homelessness and mental illness are undeniably linked and the question is far more complex than forcing “group A” to associate with “group B”.  Often a homeless person is homeless by their illness through choice.  I would even dare to suggest that the transgendered homeless woman and perennial political candidate probably suffered from mental illness. 

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html

This is my number one problem with statists like yourself.  You are lazy intellectually and you readily give up logic for the problem to be twisted to a political end.  I.E. is the problem homeless transgender victimization or mental illness?   WIth the information provided its easily arguable that it is mental illness.  You latch on to a tragedy in a self-serving manner and you use it as a reason for blanket oppression.  

It’s this intellectually bankrupt nature that has allowed for tyrants in the past and it is why I rejected your argument before.  You have justified the rejection with your wild and unsubstantiated claims and projections.

LOL

And you fail. A self anointed anarchist postulates an argument for legislation based on an isolated incident founded on a questionable premiss at best. You never even considered alternatives. Bankrupt and a fraud. Cheers.

Kyriarchy: Now merely an isolated incident.

You made the argument and you failed. You are a fraud. It is what it is.

8:07pm
64 notes
Reblogged from aaronfunandmental

Direct quote from an AnCap →

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

 

If you want to know how *I* would feel, you should probably ask me directly next time, and actually establish parameters for your hypothetical situation.

I’ll oblige. How do you feel? I’ll get the popcorn. Long winded fascist apologies fascinate me.

Again, parameters?
How would I feel if right now, in our present socioeconomic construct in the United States, a baker refused to make a KKK cake?

I’d condone the same consequences they’d receive for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple:

Social shaming and ostracism, and economic boycott by ethical shoppers.

So you understand the principle but don’t want it to apply evenly or you think it should be legislated to apply to favored notions? I’m honestly attempting to understand your fear of the marketplace of ideas.

Not baking someone a cake does not have the same consequences as forcing someone to freeze to death in the cold.

The harm isn’t proportionate, so neither should the measures taken to prevent and/or rectify it be proportionate.

Who is forcing people to freeze to death in the cold? I’m curious. And if this were a problem why do you think that contemporary western civilization would allow it to persist?

You are using a non-existent extreme to justify oppression. This is a familiar tactic of statists and has been for as long as the state has existed.

Lenin allowed millions upon millions of Ukrainian kulaks to starve and freeze in the name of an egalitarian utopia. Hitler’s crimes against humanity are equally well documented.

When has a free society actively participated in allowing people to freeze to death?

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. It is on you given your arguments sanctioning state power.

Your suppositions aside, why should I allow coercive groupthink given the track record?

Edit: Just checked out your blog.  You need to remove the self-styled description of “Anarchist”.  In light of this discourse alone it is a laughably bad descriptor.

http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1309

Yes, how utterly un-anarchistic of me to believe the rights of an individual precede the “rights” of hierarchical capitalist corporations.

A capitalist corporation killed this transgendered woman? I read your article and missed that. I would like to abolish corporations but I would like for you to tell me which one killed her.

In a city with a metro population of 1.25 million +/- there were 136 people that “died on the streets of Austin in the last 12 months” according to that article.  This says nothing about the cause of death or why they were on the streets on the first place.  Is it sad?  Probably.  Is it something that you can justify crafting compulsory legislation over based on that information?  Apparently so, you are not an anarchist.

Homelessness and mental illness are undeniably linked and the question is far more complex than forcing “group A” to associate with “group B”.  Often a homeless person is homeless by their illness through choice.  I would even dare to suggest that the transgendered homeless woman and perennial political candidate probably suffered from mental illness. 

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html

This is my number one problem with statists like yourself.  You are lazy intellectually and you readily give up logic for the problem to be twisted to a political end.  I.E. is the problem homeless transgender victimization or mental illness?   WIth the information provided its easily arguable that it is mental illness.  You latch on to a tragedy in a self-serving manner and you use it as a reason for blanket oppression.  

It’s this intellectually bankrupt nature that has allowed for tyrants in the past and it is why I rejected your argument before.  You have justified the rejection with your wild and unsubstantiated claims and projections.

LOL

And you fail. A self anointed anarchist postulates an argument for legislation based on an isolated incident founded on a questionable premiss at best. You never even considered alternatives. Bankrupt and a fraud. Cheers.

4:25pm
64 notes
Reblogged from aaronfunandmental

Direct quote from an AnCap →

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

 

If you want to know how *I* would feel, you should probably ask me directly next time, and actually establish parameters for your hypothetical situation.

I’ll oblige. How do you feel? I’ll get the popcorn. Long winded fascist apologies fascinate me.

Again, parameters?
How would I feel if right now, in our present socioeconomic construct in the United States, a baker refused to make a KKK cake?

I’d condone the same consequences they’d receive for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple:

Social shaming and ostracism, and economic boycott by ethical shoppers.

So you understand the principle but don’t want it to apply evenly or you think it should be legislated to apply to favored notions? I’m honestly attempting to understand your fear of the marketplace of ideas.

Not baking someone a cake does not have the same consequences as forcing someone to freeze to death in the cold.

The harm isn’t proportionate, so neither should the measures taken to prevent and/or rectify it be proportionate.

Who is forcing people to freeze to death in the cold? I’m curious. And if this were a problem why do you think that contemporary western civilization would allow it to persist?

You are using a non-existent extreme to justify oppression. This is a familiar tactic of statists and has been for as long as the state has existed.

Lenin allowed millions upon millions of Ukrainian kulaks to starve and freeze in the name of an egalitarian utopia. Hitler’s crimes against humanity are equally well documented.

When has a free society actively participated in allowing people to freeze to death?

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. It is on you given your arguments sanctioning state power.

Your suppositions aside, why should I allow coercive groupthink given the track record?

Edit: Just checked out your blog.  You need to remove the self-styled description of “Anarchist”.  In light of this discourse alone it is a laughably bad descriptor.

http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1309

Yes, how utterly un-anarchistic of me to believe the rights of an individual precede the “rights” of hierarchical capitalist corporations.

A capitalist corporation killed this transgendered woman? I read your article and missed that. I would like to abolish corporations but I would like for you to tell me which one killed her.

In a city with a metro population of 1.25 million +/- there were 136 people that “died on the streets of Austin in the last 12 months” according to that article.  This says nothing about the cause of death or why they were on the streets on the first place.  Is it sad?  Probably.  Is it something that you can justify crafting compulsory legislation over based on that information?  Apparently so, you are not an anarchist.

Homelessness and mental illness are undeniably linked and the question is far more complex than forcing “group A” to associate with “group B”.  Often a homeless person is homeless by their illness through choice.  I would even dare to suggest that the transgendered homeless woman and perennial political candidate probably suffered from mental illness. 

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html

This is my number one problem with statists like yourself.  You are lazy intellectually and you readily give up logic for the problem to be twisted to a political end.  I.E. is the problem homeless transgender victimization or mental illness?   WIth the information provided its easily arguable that it is mental illness.  You latch on to a tragedy in a self-serving manner and you use it as a reason for blanket oppression.  

It’s this intellectually bankrupt nature that has allowed for tyrants in the past and it is why I rejected your argument before.  You have justified the rejection with your wild and unsubstantiated claims and projections.

1:53pm
64 notes
Reblogged from aaronfunandmental

Direct quote from an AnCap →

 

If you want to know how *I* would feel, you should probably ask me directly next time, and actually establish parameters for your hypothetical situation.

I’ll oblige. How do you feel? I’ll get the popcorn. Long winded fascist apologies fascinate me.

Again, parameters?
How would I feel if right now, in our present socioeconomic construct in the United States, a baker refused to make a KKK cake?

I’d condone the same consequences they’d receive for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple:

Social shaming and ostracism, and economic boycott by ethical shoppers.

So you understand the principle but don’t want it to apply evenly or you think it should be legislated to apply to favored notions? I’m honestly attempting to understand your fear of the marketplace of ideas.

Not baking someone a cake does not have the same consequences as forcing someone to freeze to death in the cold.

The harm isn’t proportionate, so neither should the measures taken to prevent and/or rectify it be proportionate.

Who is forcing people to freeze to death in the cold? I’m curious. And if this were a problem why do you think that contemporary western civilization would allow it to persist?

You are using a non-existent extreme to justify oppression. This is a familiar tactic of statists and has been for as long as the state has existed.

Lenin allowed millions upon millions of Ukrainian kulaks to starve and freeze in the name of an egalitarian utopia. Hitler’s crimes against humanity are equally well documented.

When has a free society actively participated in allowing people to freeze to death?

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. It is on you given your arguments sanctioning state power.

Your suppositions aside, why should I allow coercive groupthink given the track record?

Edit: Just checked out your blog.  You need to remove the self-styled description of “Anarchist”.  In light of this discourse alone it is a laughably bad descriptor.

1:23pm
64 notes
Reblogged from aaronfunandmental

Direct quote from an AnCap →

aaronfunandmental:

kentuckycardinal:

aaronfunandmental:

freemarketsfreepeople:

aaronfunandmental:

freemarketsfreepeople:

ancap-uk:

wageronanarcho-capitalism:

ancap-uk:

underattack86:

aaronfunandmental:

underattack86:

Anti-discrimination laws help keep bigots and racists in business. Business owners should be able to discriminate against blacks, gays, mexicans, whites, quadriplegics, etc. At least that way you know where not to shop. That’s why I don’t get it when people use the government to force…

Using the force of government to regulate what people can and cannot believe, or do peacefully with their own property, kills a hell of a lot more. You really think an ancap is wrong to defend each person’s right to hold their own beliefs? That’s some 1984 thoughtcrime shit.

They can *believe* whatever they want.

Discrimination is not belief, its action. It’s violence against another.

My community is literally being killed by discrimination.

This AnCap believes a capitalist has the *right* to kill me.

Do you?

Did you read the discussion that you posted? He believes no such thing, I read every word he wrote. He believes that a business owner has a right to not engage in business with people if they choose, and you highlight this as if its absurd or unreasonable. It’s a basic individual freedom that a bigot has just as much as you and I. It’s a fundamental freedom.

And you’re wrong, discrimination is belief. There’s nothing violent about the act of discrimination. Transphobic violence (which I assume is what you’re alluding to) isn’t a matter of discrimination, it’s a matter of aggressive force, which incidentally is exactly what ancaps are opposed to, and what the state embodies.

You attacked Anthony on the basis of his skin colour and sex, saying that his beliefs are “bullshit only a white cishet man would write”. Considering that he’s echoing the sentiments of Walter Williams, your assertion is clearly just baseless and irrational bigotry.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/the-right-to-discriminate.html

I couldnt have said it better myself mate. Walter Block has also written about this a lot too. Defending the undefendable, go read it because its an amazing book.

Discrimination is a thought, nothing more. If you’re pathetic enough to hate someone based on their colour, sex, sexuality, tattoos or whatever else then you’re an idiot…but you have a right to act on your thought so long as you are not violating another person.

Hating someone isnt a violate act. I’m going to use communist in my example here because its less fiery than race and hopefully people will stay a little calmer about it.

Lets say I hate communist’s and there is no way in hell I would knowingly hire one. I hate them SO much I would rather hire someone worse at their job or pay someone else more than hire that sort of person.
Nobody there is being violated even though someone is being discriminated against. I am paying a huge penalty because of my beliefs, I am either getting less productivity or I am paying someone more…either way I am making less money than hiring the Commie.

Now lets say that the communist knew I was discriminating against him. He would have one of two choice. Option A he could say “fuck you, I dont want to work with people like you” or he could say “you know, he’s an arsehole but I want his money more than I care about his stupid thoughts so I’m going to take a paycut and get the job that way”.

If he does that and I still dont hire him I would be taking a massive financial penalty because my personal beliefs wont let me. I’m effectively saying “I would rather lose money than be around someone like you”. I would be an idiot to do that and a massive, massive dick BUT I should have the right to do that.

I dont have a right to assault you or call you names but I do have a right to choose whether or not I associate myself with you.

Not easy to like, but since any other alternative is government intrusion… I do have to side with liberty.

In the words of the Leader, my views have “evolved”.

I just don’t understand why people have to be dicks to each other in the first place.

But I understand it and I agree with the use of philosophical discrimination.  I don’t want to work or associate with Obama-worshipping liberals.  Doesn’t make me a racist: that makes me a smart guy.

Also people forget its a two way street. Just as a business owner has a right to discriminate against people, people have a right to discriminate against business.

Who in their right mind would say its immoral for someone not to shop at a certain store because the shop owner was a raving racist and had the old “no blacks, no dogs, no irish” sign hanging on the door in-between pictures of che guevara and Adolf Hitler? Who in the world with a braincell would say that person HAS to shop there.

We make choices like that all the time. We discriminate against one company because another is doing something we like, such as supporting a charity or giving better working conditions to workers.

There is no moral difference between a business choosing not to hire someone and a customer choosing not to shop there.

I wonder if liberals would be angry if a baker refused to bake a KKK cake, effectively discriminating against racists.

I’m not a liberal.

Whatever the hell you call yourself. You didn’t answer the question

You asked about liberals.
I can’t answer on their behalf.

If you want to know how *I* would feel, you should probably ask me directly next time, and actually establish parameters for your hypothetical situation.

I’ll oblige. How do you feel? I’ll get the popcorn. Long winded fascist apologies fascinate me.

Again, parameters?
How would I feel if right now, in our present socioeconomic construct in the United States, a baker refused to make a KKK cake?

I’d condone the same consequences they’d receive for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple:

Social shaming and ostracism, and economic boycott by ethical shoppers.

So you understand the principle but don’t want it to apply evenly or you think it should be legislated to apply to favored notions? I’m honestly attempting to understand your fear of the marketplace of ideas.

12:59pm
64 notes
Reblogged from aaronfunandmental

Direct quote from an AnCap →

aaronfunandmental:

freemarketsfreepeople:

aaronfunandmental:

freemarketsfreepeople:

ancap-uk:

wageronanarcho-capitalism:

ancap-uk:

underattack86:

aaronfunandmental:

underattack86:

Anti-discrimination laws help keep bigots and racists in business. Business owners should be able to discriminate against blacks, gays, mexicans, whites, quadriplegics, etc. At least that way you know where not to shop. That’s why I don’t get it when people use the government to force…

Using the force of government to regulate what people can and cannot believe, or do peacefully with their own property, kills a hell of a lot more. You really think an ancap is wrong to defend each person’s right to hold their own beliefs? That’s some 1984 thoughtcrime shit.

They can *believe* whatever they want.

Discrimination is not belief, its action. It’s violence against another.

My community is literally being killed by discrimination.

This AnCap believes a capitalist has the *right* to kill me.

Do you?

Did you read the discussion that you posted? He believes no such thing, I read every word he wrote. He believes that a business owner has a right to not engage in business with people if they choose, and you highlight this as if its absurd or unreasonable. It’s a basic individual freedom that a bigot has just as much as you and I. It’s a fundamental freedom.

And you’re wrong, discrimination is belief. There’s nothing violent about the act of discrimination. Transphobic violence (which I assume is what you’re alluding to) isn’t a matter of discrimination, it’s a matter of aggressive force, which incidentally is exactly what ancaps are opposed to, and what the state embodies.

You attacked Anthony on the basis of his skin colour and sex, saying that his beliefs are “bullshit only a white cishet man would write”. Considering that he’s echoing the sentiments of Walter Williams, your assertion is clearly just baseless and irrational bigotry.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/the-right-to-discriminate.html

I couldnt have said it better myself mate. Walter Block has also written about this a lot too. Defending the undefendable, go read it because its an amazing book.

Discrimination is a thought, nothing more. If you’re pathetic enough to hate someone based on their colour, sex, sexuality, tattoos or whatever else then you’re an idiot…but you have a right to act on your thought so long as you are not violating another person.

Hating someone isnt a violate act. I’m going to use communist in my example here because its less fiery than race and hopefully people will stay a little calmer about it.

Lets say I hate communist’s and there is no way in hell I would knowingly hire one. I hate them SO much I would rather hire someone worse at their job or pay someone else more than hire that sort of person.
Nobody there is being violated even though someone is being discriminated against. I am paying a huge penalty because of my beliefs, I am either getting less productivity or I am paying someone more…either way I am making less money than hiring the Commie.

Now lets say that the communist knew I was discriminating against him. He would have one of two choice. Option A he could say “fuck you, I dont want to work with people like you” or he could say “you know, he’s an arsehole but I want his money more than I care about his stupid thoughts so I’m going to take a paycut and get the job that way”.

If he does that and I still dont hire him I would be taking a massive financial penalty because my personal beliefs wont let me. I’m effectively saying “I would rather lose money than be around someone like you”. I would be an idiot to do that and a massive, massive dick BUT I should have the right to do that.

I dont have a right to assault you or call you names but I do have a right to choose whether or not I associate myself with you.

Not easy to like, but since any other alternative is government intrusion… I do have to side with liberty.

In the words of the Leader, my views have “evolved”.

I just don’t understand why people have to be dicks to each other in the first place.

But I understand it and I agree with the use of philosophical discrimination.  I don’t want to work or associate with Obama-worshipping liberals.  Doesn’t make me a racist: that makes me a smart guy.

Also people forget its a two way street. Just as a business owner has a right to discriminate against people, people have a right to discriminate against business.

Who in their right mind would say its immoral for someone not to shop at a certain store because the shop owner was a raving racist and had the old “no blacks, no dogs, no irish” sign hanging on the door in-between pictures of che guevara and Adolf Hitler? Who in the world with a braincell would say that person HAS to shop there.

We make choices like that all the time. We discriminate against one company because another is doing something we like, such as supporting a charity or giving better working conditions to workers.

There is no moral difference between a business choosing not to hire someone and a customer choosing not to shop there.

I wonder if liberals would be angry if a baker refused to bake a KKK cake, effectively discriminating against racists.

I’m not a liberal.

Whatever the hell you call yourself. You didn’t answer the question

You asked about liberals.
I can’t answer on their behalf.

If you want to know how *I* would feel, you should probably ask me directly next time, and actually establish parameters for your hypothetical situation.

I’ll oblige. How do you feel? I’ll get the popcorn. Long winded fascist apologies fascinate me.

12:53pm
15 notes
Reblogged from 2tuffhuff

Control of the police and the army is particularly important in enforcing and assuring all of the State’s other powers, including the all-important power to extract its revenue by coercion.

— 

Murray Rothbard

The Ethics of Liberty

(via 2tuffhuff)

The state would cease to exist without coercion, theft and in most cases corporate support for these actions.

December 17, 2013 at 9:47pm
2 notes

November 29, 2013 at 7:41pm
22 notes
Reblogged from gameofthorins

gameofthorins:

Sometimes I’ll think of re-reading The Children of Hurin but stop myself because that book always leaves me really…troubled.

image

Reading the book physically ages you. The woman pictured is actually 23.

(via ar-azruzimril-deactivated201401)