Sunday, February 28, 2016

Crony-Capitalism for the Benefit of the People (Apple-FBI Controversy)?


What happens when the Crony-Capitalists explicitly use their influence on Government to the benefit of their customers?

The Apple customers demand privacy. Apple strong-arms the Government (and its politicians) to keep its customers happy.

Wait. . . what?

I suppose this is a round-about way for Democracy to work, with Apple being the surrogate "enforcer" of the peoples' will?

Enjoy the Donald Trump Political Theatre

As I see the horror people are having of Donald Trump, I'm reminded about the disgust my wife had for Steve Carell's character as the boss on "The Office." I told her that it's not real, and that it's satire. It's comedy. She gradually began to enjoy his character.

Consider that politics is all about about "putting on a show" in order to get elected, and then once they get elected, the politicians make the deals that benefit their donors only worrying about reelection. Don't take what the politicians say seriously. It's just a show.

Once you accept the premise, then you can enjoy Donald Trump, playing the Presidential candidate Donald Trump, endlessly mock the political establishment. And it's hilarious!

Come join the fun that is mocking politics and politicians for what it has been for a long time: a huge farce providing the illusion that the Establishment actually cares what you think. Or that your vote even matters. (Don't forget the electoral college!)

Even if "the Donald" gets elected, none of his domestic policies which require Congressional approval will likely happen as the Establishment will unite to stop him at every turn. In terms of foreign policy for which the President can take unilateral action, Trump is a dove. Trump is self-funded and the military-industrial complex has minimal influence on his decisions. The opposition is so fierce from even the Deep State, that Trump's assassination would not be surprising.

The Presidential office has long been in the hands of crony-capitalists and war mongers. It's about time we get a true "outsider" candidate if for any other reason but to give an extended middle finger to the Establishment that has ignored the will of the people.

I look forward to the mockery that will be Trump's VP ticket, and at least four more years of open ridicule to the rest of the world leaders as Trump exposes the theatre that is Global Politics and the Deep State.


Saturday, February 27, 2016

Where's the Love in the Libertarian Movement?

"People don't care how much you KNOW until they know how much you CARE" - Unknown

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not LOVE, I am a noisy GONG or a clanging CYMBAL. And if I have prophetic powers, and UNDERSTAND ALL MYSTERIES AND ALL KNOWLEDGE, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not LOVE, I am nothing." - 1 Corinthians 13: 1 - 2

“You can see the rider serving the elephant when people are morally dumbfounded. They have strong gut feelings about what is right and wrong, and they struggle to construct post hoc justifications for those feelings. Even when the servant (reasoning) comes back empty-handed, the master (intuition) doesn't change his judgment.” ― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." (T 2.3.3 p. 415) - David Hume


To the Libertarians interested in spreading the Gospel of "Liberty": we have a messaging problem. It's not an intellectual problem. We fail to demonstrate LOVE.

Did you notice yourself immediately feeling uncomfortable when I mentioned "Love" or while reading the quotes above? Keep that feeling in mind, because it's you, especially, this message pertains to. [As I write this, be advised this is primarily an inner-dialog than anything else. My inner-voice is quite confrontational and blunt. There's no way I can actually know your exact situation and for something as deeply personal as this, I acknowledge this.]

I'm going to steal some concepts from Reformed Christianity to help illustrate my point. Even as an Atheist, Penn Jillette has been exploring Evangelical churches to learn from their techniques in demonstrating "love" to apply to his Atheist church, United Church of Bacon. #LoveNeedsNoGod

There are three, primary "roles" in the Kingdom of God:

- Prophets (Speakers of Truth)
- Kings (Day-to-Day Administrators and Organizers)
- Priests (Relationally focused, ministering mercy and sympathy)

Jesus perfectly encapsulates all three, while humans tend to be strong in one or two roles, and weak in another. Libertarian Prophets are Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and others. Libertarian Kings are successful free market Capitalists. Libertarian Priests are . . . largely non-existent.

I've been reflecting on this shortage, since within myself, I have a strong deficiency in my Priestly attributes, and weigh heavily as a Prophet/King. The quotes above and the term "Love" causes my Elephant to buck. As the "Rider," I began searching into my heart (the Elephant), and realized my Elephant has a knee-jerk reaction to look down on those who exhibit Priestly qualities. My Elephant reacts: "Emotions make me feel uncomfortable due to past emotional traumas." Then the Rider justifies the Elephant: "Priests are pussies, weak-minded, idiots, contradictory, and emotionally wishy washy. I, on the other hand, in my great Ivory tower of Reason, Logic, and Intellect am superior and could never lower myself to pander to people's hearts. That would be untrue to who I am."

For Libertarians, our God should solely be Individualism and to proselytize for new believers. But we have strayed from our one, true God. Instead of Individualism, we have created an idol out of Intellectualism. Instead of humbling ourselves, as Christ humbled Himself even to the point of a torturous death on the cross, we choose to demand non-believers to come to Orthodoxy on their own efforts (through Logic and Reason that their Elephants have no regard for).*

If you were to be a missionary to the darkest depths of Congo, and only communicate to them in English, don't you think that's foolish? Why insist and denigrate the Elephants who are incapable of understanding the language of Logic and Reason? Understand them. Empathize with them. Humble yourself to their world, and then speak to them in a language they can understand: Love.

Or another example: what is the more effective tool to win converts to Christianity? The hellfire and brimstone confrontations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the hopeful, and love filled messages of Rick Warren and and Joel Osteen? Libertarians would be wise to learn from the outrageously successful, positive messaging these Preachers profess. **


Progressives are right to be skeptical about Libertarians' claims that charity will adequately provide for the legitimately needy. Libertarians put their "faith" on the goodness of humanity or self-interested individuals to care for those in need. There are no strong, intellectual arguments that can guarantee there will be enough charity, one way or another. Progressives would prefer the sin of "theft" if it means there's a minimum level of "care" that can be guaranteed. What's the best way to deal with this "leap of faith" we ask non-believers to make so they don't have to choose from the "lesser of two evils?"

"Actions speak louder than words." As Libertarians, we should be like a "City Upon a Hill," and "Salt Unto the Earth." Libertarians should be the ones with communities that have the happiest and healthiest relationships. Dumping the intellectual arguments as secondary, Libertarians should have the most loving communities in existence that drive Progressives crazy with jealousy. "By this all people will know that you are Libertarians, if you have love for one another." ***

Instead, what do Libertarians have to show for a loving community? Ayn Rand? Why do you think non-believers reliably point to Ayn Rand's personal life as the primary reason to discredit Libertarianism? Yes, I agree, it's MADDENING! What's a person's heart have to do with their ideas? But it's all about speaking to the Elephant. It's about pointing to explicit, real world examples that are deeply personal and speak to the heart (and not intellect) of the individual.

Let the doubt toward charity for the needy be washed away by the demonstration of Libertarian communities. Libertarians should be known for communities filled with Love, Peace and Prosperity; "but the greatest of these is Love."

The Libertarian movement has enough Prophets and Kings. What we need is a revolution of Priestly love. What we need are "Elephant Whisperers" and that starts with us reflecting on our own hearts, humbling ourselves for the sake of Liberty.


What does this mean practically? Well, I'm sure as hell not an expert. But if I were to confess my sins publicly and project them onto you (as to minimize my own discomfort), here it goes:

1) Stop intellectually masturbating over how logical and reasoned you are (no one cares except you)

2) Stop mocking all those "idiots" out there who don't know how to speak logic and reason (they certainly don't like it!)

3) Focus on developing your own emotional intelligence (yes, a very different type of "human capital" than what Intellectuals typically tell you)

But the overarching, #1 priority is to practice and grow your Love muscles. I know. Your Elephant is bucking again. So is mine, even as I type it. LOVE LOVE LOVE. Let your Grinch heart grow!

Sorry, it's the objective truth. Learn to Love others as they want to be Loved, or you will remain ineffective in influencing people. The reality is that those who can be convinced by Reason and Logic have already done so. The rest requires a whole lot of Love.

And lest you fail to realize that you have your own Elephant and are in denial that your Rider is not actually fully in control, you may need to work through some emotional trauma. Even I, while typing through this article, have a long way to go before I can fully embrace the message of Love.

I know. . . echhh. Just give it some time and reflect upon it. Notice how this discomfort you feel is different than the discomfort you feel when intellectually challenged with questions on the existence of Free Will, or if Truth is relative or absolute. I'd say this is a clear indicator it's your Elephant that's being challenged, and not so much the Rider.

See! Now you know how those whom you denigrate as idiots feel!


* Reflect upon Jesus, and how he interacted with various individuals in the Gospels. He changed his communication style depending on the individual he spoke to. Ranging from no words, "Jesus wept;" to speaking in Parables; Jesus was a master Elephant whisperer. And. . . let's just skip those examples where Jesus rails into the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, unless your objective is to be crucified just like Jesus!

** I recommend listening to Tim Keller on preaching to the heart:

*** The Free State Project could be the most compelling argument for non-believers if the Free Staters can exemplify a loving community. Or it could be the worst thing if it breaks down into bickering over intellectual matters that non-believers don't care about. And I would be remiss not to mention Tom Woods' Contra Cruise! Also, all the Facebook communities being created to help support one another. Well, already, I'm sure the Libertarian community is already heading in a much more "Loving" direction. Keep it going!

Friday, February 26, 2016

Leveraging Technology and Productivity During Childhood and Teenage Years

Okay, yes it was fun. But when you consider the tools that are available today, I wonder what kinds of music, YouTube videos, etc. we could had produced had they been available during our time.

There are many YouTube income generators today that started producing while in High School.

Instead of income producing efforts, I have this picture to show for our expended time and energy. Extended adolescence is fun, but productivity is much more satisfying.

Kids today, more than anytime in history, have technology at their fingertips, limited only by their own human labor and ingenuity, to produce and globally disseminate digital goods for monetary gain. At least for my kids, I intend to provide the tools necessary, and sense of entrepreneurial empowerment, for them to never need to consider working a minimum wage job.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

UNPUBLIC #21 - Reaction to Sam Harris' Blind Spot in Apple-FBI Debate: Tyranny, Monopoly of Violence


Sam Harris believes people distrusting the State are practicing paranoia, dogmatism, and a recipe for anarchy. Anti-State individuals are irrelevant, childish, and imbeciles.

"This whole business about “statism” I find profoundly uninteresting." - Sam Harris


Anyone else noticing the “blind spot” that Sam Harris failed to address in his discussion with Apple for his latest podcast? Namely Government abuse of power (AKA Tyranny)?

It’s starting to become so blatant and so obvious, and I have such high respect for his intellect, that I’m starting to believe this “blind spot” is intentional.

I know he said these are his first thoughts on the subject, however, I notice a common “logic” that he exercises on a frequent basis. It seems in his discussions on various issues, he fails to properly address the reality that there are individuals with a Government title that wield a monopoly on violence. Some of these individuals may not be as “evil” as Jihadists, but are ultimately self-serving and willing to crush independent liberties if politically feasible. These individuals, should they commit these very same actions as non-Government officials, would be considered unethical, yet somehow, Sam Harris provides an “exception” clause. Sam Harris repeatedly fails to explain how a Government title exempts an individual from the standard laws of ethics that apply to the rest of us.

He pointed out some examples to support his case for the FBI which are of such fringe concerns, yet sets them up as the foundation of his argument:

1) It’s inconceivable that there would be anywhere on Earth, a room, or a physical space, where no one can gain access to forever.

2) There are people who have filmed murders on their phone, and if only the police could gain access to it, it would reveal the murderer.

3) Terrorists and criminals use the encryption to their advantage.

4) You can trust the Government to not abuse the power of decryption since you have a “court order.”



1) To equate a digital space to have the same ethics as physical space is fallacious. Primarily, no one is deprived of anything when you deprive them of your digital “space.” You can have infinite “digital” space, but you are limited to “physical” space.

2) How frequently does this actually happen per year? We may “suspect” there is some useful footage, but how many murder victims had enough time to setup their smart phones to record their own murder? This is a false premise to “authority,” made especially obvious when he said his source is a “district attorney” whom he won’t mention.

3) And so do innocent individuals who want to protect their privacy from Government bureaucrats and law enforcement who frequently demonstrate their penchant to abuse their monopoly on violence. Once this unlock tool gets released to the FBI, does Sam Harris seriously believe it won’t eventually be released to the State, County, and City level?

4) What world does he live in where the judicial system can be trusted, in the long run, to rule against Government officials that pay their salaries and give them their power?


SAM HARRIS’ LOGIC: When it comes to trusting individuals with a Government title versus individuals without a Government title, Sam Harris errs on the side of Government tyranny, because without Government tyranny, terrorists and murderers will rule the world.

Sacrifice your individual liberties under the guise of safety by your benevolent protectors: Government bureaucrats.


Referenced Article

=== === === ===


Jonathan Haidt, "The Righteous Mind," Questions on Moral Relativism

I'm going through the audio book on "The Righteous Mind" and just passed the section where Haidt discusses Kantian deontology as though it's only one of five "tastes" of the tongue, and then stating that a restaurant that only had "sweet" as its only item on the menu would not be popular.

From a purely Descriptive point of view, I agree that Libertarian ethics hinges on the "single flavor" of the "Non-Aggression Principle." I would also agree that Libertarians have a messaging problem since they insist that people must have ideologies that are logically consistent for which most people have difficulty maintaining. In the book's example, Haidt demonstrates that the Elephant (AKA Emotion) is the main driver of people's beliefs rather than the Rider (AKA Higher Intellect). Or, in another metaphor, the "tail wags the dog."

Now going from a Descriptive to a Moral Declaration, is Haidt's position essentially that each "perspective" is just as "valid" as another perspective? Is Haidt's premise essentially moral relativism?

Would Haidt say that claiming you have the absolute truth on morality to be, within itself, an immoral act?


Coming from a Platonic / Aristotle view on metaphysical laws of Reason:

1) Identity
2) Non-Contradiction
3) Causality

I'm having difficulty seeing how contradicting ideologies are equally just as morally, and objectively true to each other. How can stealing be both moral and immoral? Or Rape? or Slavery? or Murder?

Or to take it beyond politics, how can there be both a God and not be a God? For there to exist an individual, and not an individual? "Free Will" to exist and not exist?

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Tail Wags the Dog

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." (T 2.3.3 p. 415)

- David Hume

Austrian Economics Application to Practical Business Owners and Entrepreneurs


Listening to this 30 minute book at 2.0x speed has been beneficial in helping me better analyze my business and management.

New Hampshire and the Free State Project: Moving on Principle

Interesting. Perhaps I'll need to look at making my next hotel purchase in New Hampshire. Not necessarily because it may make the most monetary sense, but on principle.

Or I could justify it by projecting that New Hampshire, with its growing number of Libertarians, will, in the long run, be the most "business friendly" State (especially in light of the SJW growing into politics).

Monday, February 22, 2016

Sam Harris' Blind Spot on the Apple Encryption Debate: Tyranny

UPDATE:  2/23/2016

It's intentional:

This whole business about “statism” I find profoundly uninteresting. This is a separate conversation about the problems of U.S. foreign policy, the problems of bureaucracy, the problems of the tyranny of the majority, or the tyranny of empowered minorities (oligarchy)—these are all topics worth thinking about. But to compare a powerful state per se with the problem of religion is to make a hash of everything that’s important to talk about here. And the idea that we could do without a powerful state at this point is just preposterous.

If you’re an anarchist, you’re either fifty or a hundred years before your time (not withstanding what I just said about artificial intelligence), or you’re an imbecile. We need the police, we need the fire department, we need people to pave our roads, we can’t privatize all that stuff, and privatizing it would beget its own problems.

So, whenever I hear someone say, “You worship the religion of the State,” I know I’m in the presence of someone who isn’t ready for a conversation about religion, and isn’t ready to talk about the degree to which we rely, and are wise to rely, on the powers of a well-functioning government. In so far as our government doesn’t function well, then we have to change it. We have to resist its overreach into our lives. But behind this concern about statism is always some confusion about the problem of religion."



Anyone else noticing the "blind spot" that Sam Harris failed to address in his discussion with Apple for his latest podcast? Namely Government abuse of power (AKA Tyranny)?

It's starting to become so blatant and so obvious, and I have such high respect for his intellect, that I'm starting to believe this "blind spot" is intentional.

I know he said these are his first thoughts on the subject, however, I notice a common "logic" that he exercises on a frequent basis. It seems in his discussions on various issues, he fails to properly address the reality that there are individuals with a Government title that wield a monopoly on violence. Some of these individuals may not be as "evil" as Jihadists, but are ultimately self-serving and willing to crush independent liberties if politically feasible. These individuals, should they commit these very same actions as non-Government officials, would be considered unethical, yet somehow, Sam Harris provides an "exception" clause. Sam Harris repeatedly fails to explain how a Government title exempts an individual from the standard laws of ethics that apply to the rest of us.

He pointed out some examples to support his case for the FBI which are of such fringe concerns, yet sets them up as the foundation of his argument:

1) It's inconceivable that there would be anywhere on Earth, a room, or a physical space, where no one can gain access to forever.

2) There are people who have filmed murders on their phone, and if only the police could gain access to it, it would reveal the murderer.

3) Terrorists and criminals use the encryption to their advantage.

4) You can trust the Government to not abuse the power of decryption since you have a "court order."



1) To equate a digital space to have the same ethics as physical space is fallacious. Primarily, no one is deprived of anything when you deprive them of your digital "space." You can have infinite "digital" space, but you are limited to "physical" space.

2) How frequently does this actually happen per year? We may "suspect" there is some useful footage, but how many murder victims had enough time to setup their smart phones to record their own murder? This is a false premise to "authority," made especially obvious when he said his source is a "district attorney" whom he won't mention.

3) And so do innocent individuals who want to protect their privacy from Government bureaucrats and law enforcement who frequently demonstrate their penchant to abuse their monopoly on violence. Once this unlock tool gets released to the FBI, does Sam Harris seriously believe it won't eventually be released to the State, County, and City level?

4) What world does he live in where the judicial system can be trusted, in the long run, to rule against Government officials that pay their salaries and give them their power?


SAM HARRIS' LOGIC: When it comes to trusting individuals with a Government title versus individuals without a Government title, Sam Harris errs on the side of Government tyranny, because without Government tyranny, terrorists and murderers will rule the world.

Sacrifice your individual liberties under the guise of safety by your benevolent protectors: Government bureaucrats.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Blade Runner Review


Though first published in 1968, the themes are still relevant today. Philosophically challenging, bringing questions to mind not otherwise brought up in day-to-day life, through an entertaining medium.

I watched the movie previous to reading (and after), and the book was still very interesting bringing in pivotal scenes the movie left out. I was always hesitant to read the book after watching the movie, which generally was more action packed than philosophical. I'm very glad I chose to read the book since the movie left out many of the philosophical questions brought up in the book.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Bean-To-Bar Chocolate Bar: Marou Wallpaper Tien Gang 80% Chocolate Bar

$10 to try a bean-to-bar chocolate bar. Just a small piece for me is able to satiate my chocolate craving for at least a couple hours. This particular bar is made by the silver and bronze winners of an international chocolate contest.

I decided to take the dive after listening to Seth Godin on Tim Ferris' podcast (

The flavors are definitely much more complex than the typical Lindt and Ferrero Rocher chocolates I usually have. Just be warned my kids and wife hate it. But I just like to suck on it and experience the stimulating taste bud experience. This is probably similar to difference between the much more expensive, aged cheeses, versus the cheaper cheese.

So if you like complex cheese, I'm guessing you'll probably find a bean-to-bar-chocolate bar to be an interesting, and unique culinary experience.

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure by Murray N. Rothbard


30 minute listen at 1.5x speed.

How much more stable would our economy be if it weren't for the vast amounts of malinvestment encouraged by artificially low interest rates?

Banksters have the control not because of their "superior" knowledge or skill, but because they are backed by the monopoly of force we call the United States Government.

Since December 2008, we've had 0% interest rates (which is the longest in US history). The vast amounts of malinvestment will unwind, and it won't be pretty. Or it'll be pushed off with additional rounds of QE, NIRP, and/or converted to national debt, delaying the inevitable.

Pile on the debt. Pile on the problems. Just another way to push the pain off to future generations. Maybe our grand children will be smart and choose to default on the debt on the basis that they weren't the ones who accumulated it in the first place!

Friday, February 19, 2016

Peter Schiff on Moving to Puerto Rico for Act 20 & Act 22 because of #FeeltheBern

Schiff talks about moving to Puerto Rico at @20:02 to avoid ‪#‎FeeltheBern‬ in higher taxes. I have my application in, and assuming I get approved this year, I'll be moving this May.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Trump Agrees with Secret 28 Pages Report, So What?

What's in those 28 pages that is so damaging that both Bush AND Obama don't want it declassified?

Will Trump follow through on his promise to declassify if he is elected?

Will a direct link between the 15 out of 19 hijackers who were Saudi Arabians with the Saudi Government really matter to the US Public?

I doubt it.

At least if a Republican gets into office, it can bolster the anti-war movement, as much as it will become an anti-Trump movement. Anything to hinder productive Government action, I'll support.

The Smartest People Should Wield the Greatest Resources so Stop Taxing Them!

civilizations are created by individuals; they are destroyed by collectives

I've been back on my binge listening to Tim Ferris' podcast. Typically, listening to freaky smart people provide info on how they do things feels futile since their tips are so unique to their own freaky abilities. But there are some that are humble enough to be explicit as such, or are so freaky smart and unique, you're not really taking away tips to directly apply to your life, but to contemplate further implications. Walter O'Brien was one of the latter.

Bernie Sanders will correctly point out the wealth disparity in our country, but makes the mistake that ALL "richer" people obtained their wealth unjustly so that it provides the moral right for the Government to take it back and give it to the "poorer." We can rightly criticize the wealth generated through Crony-Capitalism (ie. Government Bailouts, artificially low interest rates, etc.) on the basis of violating the Non-Aggression Principle, but what of the immense wealth generated by many of the individuals in the tech industry that obtained it by providing such advances to our standard of life that they got filthy rich?

I'm talking about the Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Uber Founders, Elon Musk, and Walter O'Brien's of the world. Or let's go back in time and pick out the Rockefellers, Fords, and Edisons.

If an individual provides such great improvements to other individual lives, and demonstrated that ability over-and-over amassing huge amounts of resources (AKA Money) without initiating aggression on others, then instead of siphoning away the resources these exceptional individuals obtained and giving it to the mediocre performance of Government bureaucrats and politicians, shouldn't we let these exceptional individuals keep 100% so that they can reinvest their greater resources to advance humanity even more?

It seems backwards that the individuals for which have demonstrated exceptional abilities to advance humanity, should have a greater proportion of their resources expropriated to individuals who've repeatedly demonstrated mediocre performance.

The "greater good," in terms of advancing civilization and technological advancement, should be to allow these exceptional minds to accumulate unhampered amounts of resources through voluntary interactions to promote innovation. "Taking from the rich" and subsidizing the below-average masses hampers the progress of humanity.

I'm not advocating that we start expropriating from the mediocre and poor performers. I'm saying that we should let those, who've demonstrated exceptional ability through "Clean" Capitalism, to keep 100% of their resources so that they can reinvest those gained resource toward advancing humanity even further.

There is a myth that the "trickle-down" effect is false and the super rich just "sit" on their big piles of cash like Scrooge McDuck. The truth, if you go meta including the technological improvements and increased standards of living since the proliferation of Capitalism, proves this myth false. Also, can you provide a specific individual who accumulated vast amounts of resources, to simply place their money in a vault and not attempt to generate additional value?

Bernie Sanders asks the wrong question. It's not: "How much is more than enough money for rich people so that the Government can take away the rest?" It should be: "How much more good can the exceptional do with more resources?"

Allow the smartest and efficient in our world to wield the greatest amount of resources justly obtained, and watch as all boats rise the ocean of innovation.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Is This Only For “Tax Cheats” And “Moochers”?
● Let them go anytime they want. Just don’t ever let them back in. And make sure they are paid up in all back taxes.

● Give up your US citizenship for money? Good riddance! Don’t let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.

● And stay out. Most of those people aren’t contributing anything to America. Good riddance.

● It’s moochers that are renouncing; mostly tax cheats.

● I view these people as quitters!!

The fallacious premise for the above statements is the "Social Contract." AKA a Blank Check Progressives love to invoke to justify unlimited Government tyranny and ease their intellectually challenged brains to justify their envy and theft. And no, I'm not creating a "straw man" here as many of these individuals happen to be Bernie Sanders supporters.

Don't be fooled or deterred by their hypocritical attacks of you simply being "Greedy" and "Selfish." These are the same tactics used by SJW to silence you when they scream out, "RACIST BIGOT! BLACK LIVES MATTER."‪#‎AllLivesMatter‬ ??? Nope. There's a special place in hell for the "rich."

Further questioning will reveal their premises violate the metaphysical laws of Reason:

● Identity
● Causality
● Non-Contradiction

These individuals tend to become unresponsive when I point out their fallacious thinking. It turns out people prefer to act immorally first, and then try and create a narrative, no matter how incoherent, to justify their actions and help them sleep at night.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

How Seth Godin Inspired Me to Live Out Loud

Listening to Seth Godin resonated with me and compels me to change away from the path of destruction, for which I would exchange the chance for additional monetary wealth with silence.

Out of fear that my anti-Statist and controversial views may prevent me from being approved for tax incentives in Puerto Rico for a 4% tax rate, I placed all my Facebook posts to "private." I also stopped posting to my blog.

I then started to realize that if I were to be accepted into the tax incentive, move to Puerto Rico, and then discover that in order for me to maintain the special tax incentive would mean that I would have to keep my Free Market views secret, I realized that I could not live my life that way.

At least for a weirdo like me, who can see through the BS that is our society, the moral indignation alone would make me a miserable person.

How can I sit idly by and not at least bring to people's attention the Truth for which I see. I've been imbued with a BIG MOUTH, and to silence that would silence my very being and self-expression.

Pointing out intellectual contradictions is an art form for me. For me to point out and mock the obvious seems to be my calling. Or at least, a hobby for which takes up significant time.

I'm a thinker. I'm a questioner. I'm a deviant.

And if that causes Puerto Rico to reject me, then it's better now, than after I relocate my family.


Another thing that Seth Godin inspired me to do is to write more often on my blog. I already do so on my Facebook posts, but now I'm thinking I'll primarily write on the blog first and then copy and paste into Facebook.

At least for now, I seem to be getting a lot more "reads" from my personal Facebook page.

I've also contemplated doing a morning Podcast with daily musings on current events and articles I read on At least for now, the time sink it requires and my inspiration seems to vary morning to morning. Sometimes, I don't really have anything worthwhile to say for 30 minutes.

Monday, February 15, 2016

Mars Hill Church & My $30,000 Mistake


I haven't been following Mark Driscoll for a while, but I did once donate about $30,000 to the church being a member since the Orange County campus plant. This was an accumulation of "tithe" money over numerous years. I did this out of my understanding that around 2006, that Mark had preached that he was one of many elders that could be voted out.

At the time I donated the money and had joined the newly planted Orange County church, I was not aware that the government structure of the church had changed to provide consolidation of power to Mark Driscoll so that he could no longer be "voted out." Had I done my research into the governance structure transition, I would not had monetarily participated.

Personally, Mark Driscoll never did anything to me that I could hold him morally responsible for. It is within his full, moral right to change the governance structure for which he founded.

It wasn't until I started noticing the inherently structural weaknesses of the unhealthy pace of growth of the church, causing very brittle relationships and conflicts to occur, that was brought to my attention by the outgoing, "founding" Orange County campus pastors (ie. Kyle Firstenberg and Dave Kraft), that I dropped out.

One thing I regret is that I turned off my intellect and failed to ask questions from the beginning. Had I applied as much scrutiny to the church as I do to the State today, I would had not been so surprised. Never again will I be part of an organization without a full understanding of its governance structure and areas of weakness. Never again will I cease to be vigilant. There is no institution or organization which is invulnerable to corruption and folly.

Yes, this may seem like "duh" to all of you, but to me as an "obedient" and "non-divisive" church "member," I will admit that I turned off my brain in that one.

No one ever held a gun to my head to hand over the cash. I did it of my own free will and idiocy.


Logic Saves: Foundation, Attitudes, and Values


There are some people I've engaged that essentially act as though "everyone's opinions are just as valid as anyone else's." Usually, this is in context of the individual holding self-contradictory beliefs and lacking the skills to think internally using Reason and Logic.

I could blame this on the shortage of proper teaching in Public Schools on how to properly use Reason and Logic. The Establishment doesn't want individuals thinking critically and questioning everything.

For the unReasoned, they are not even aware that they fail to adhere to the Metaphysical Laws of Reason (as popularly described by Aristotle):

1. Identity
2. Causality
3. Non-Contradiction

Do the unReasoned choose to be so of "free will?" or is it simply because they haven't been exposed to this information? Or are there psychological reasons outside of their control that compels them to remain ignorant and rebellious toward the Metaphysical Laws of Reason?

Free Will Versus Determinism Debate and Implications on Morality

The "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" debate has implications on morality. Even within the Christian tradition, the debate between Arminianism and Pre-Destination Calvinists has been an ongoing debate.

Individualism, separate consciousness, and concepts of the "ego" are additional implications of this debate. Life, Liberty, and Personal Property seem to be predicated on "Free Will."

As I've come to understand the influence childhood trauma and mental illness has on the actions and thought patterns of my own self and my loved ones, in addition to dealing with the psychological, fallacious thinking of others in terms of objective reality screaming in their face, I've become less and less willing to attempt to "change" people's minds. What's the point if the individual really doesn't have much "free will" to actually change their thought patterns?

If a psychopath is not morally responsible for a mass murder due to a physical brain tumor rendering him incapable of restraining his impulses, then to what degree can an individual be held responsible for the indoctrination they received through Public School?

To what degree can a Bernie Sander's supporter be blamed for dehumanizing "Capitalists" in order to internally, and morally justify their envy and theft? Their minds already are set to steal from and punish those who have more than them, and then they develop a mental construct in their mind to morally justify such actions. This concept of "dehumanization" can also be applied to Neo-Cons advocating for the murder of innocents in the Middle East and shrugging it off as, "Collateral Damage" or "those people." But the root of dehumanizing attempts is to apply morality to entire groups of people, rather than toward individuals.

Within Christianity I see parallels within the concept of "hard hearts." God has already chosen the "select" for which would become receptive toward the Gospel, or would turn away from it. If the infinite riches of God's love is not enough to turn hearts (assuming if this is true), who am I to somehow believe that those who support initiating violence on other individuals can be swayed with the mere use of reason?

How does a victim appeal to the victimizer from initiating violence to take what they want? If Reason was not the original motivator, then why would I think Reason would have any effect?

But once again, the concepts of the "Non-Aggression principle" seem to be predicated on this notion of "free will?" Or is it?

I'll have to consider this further.


Sunday, February 14, 2016

The Basic Intelligence Test on the Industrial Revolution

There is a basic intelligence test that occurs when someone points to the "Industrial Revolution" as an example of "Capitalism" run amok (I will also throw in today's "sweat shops" also into the same realm of logical fallacy). They like to emphasize the Robber Barons, Child Labor, working conditions, soot, and other things, that when compared to today's standard of living, seem criminal.

I will admit that I was once of the same mindset being brainwashed by the public education system, but I think I would've quickly realized my fallacious thinking had someone pointed it out to me.

The problems with the critiques against the "Industrial Revolution" is that it doesn't properly compare conditions. The comparison should not be against the conditions of our comforts here in the United States in 2016, but should be compared against the actual, local conditions at the time in question, and those that preceded it.

Upon that view, it will become clear that the poorer working conditions of the Industrial Revolution (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the United States in the present) are actually SUPERIOR working conditions (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the locality of the specific time). And when you consider the incredible increase in the standard of living IN THANKS TO "Capitalism," you really have to wonder if the "better alternative" really can be any "better." It's not to say that "Capitalism" doesn't have its weaknesses, for which there exist. It's all about perspective since life is all about trade-offs thanks to the scarcity of resources and time.

WARNING: this video presents the information with a level of mockery / sarcasm that's not intended for those who fail to grasp this common logical fallacy. But if you don't grasp basic logic, then you probably aren't reading my posts anyway.


Saturday, February 13, 2016

Bernie Sanders Believes 57.2% Tax is Not Paying My "Fair Share"

57.2% Total Income Tax over $406,751 while living in California.

Bernie Sanders believes I'm still not paying my "fair share."

The 2015 tax year was the first time I've reached this threshold. The angry electorate are envious of the hard work invested by my Korean-immigrant parents and me resulting in annual profits over an arbitrary threshold. Now, I'm simply living in "excess." For the crime of my success, the State will now reward me by coercing more than half of all future income.

At this point, "Politics" is a matter of self-defense and moral indignation. I will not stay silent and see my remaining 40 years of working life "redistributed" to other people's "free" health care, tuition, welfare, and other "entitlements" via the wasteful, bureaucratic Mafia we call "the welfare State."


If you disagree, please write in the comments exactly how my immigrant parents and I "owe" the rest of "society" for our success (AKA "Social Contract"). Also, please specify how we didn't "earn" the success we have today (AKA "Labor Theory of Value" definition of "Exploitation"). Please also specify all the great benefits we received from the State for which we have not already paid for, therefore creating a moral obligation on us to the State to more than half of all future income (or higher if the Progressives have their way).

In the "bottom trawling" crusade of Bernie Sanders against "greed" and "capitalism," you will find caught in the "net of State coercion and violence" those who practice "clean" Capitalism. Yes, I decry Wall Street bailouts, Corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex, the drug war, and all other forms of "crony capitalism" on the grounds of violating the "Non-Aggression Principle." You are misguided if you believe punishing successful small business, immigrant owners in your crusade can be considered "justice."

The reality of what you are advocating for is the use of violence and coercion against immigrant business owners. You may want to reconsider the moral "high ground" you believe you stand on.

Friday, February 12, 2016

What Has Government Done to Our Money?


The US dollar has nothing backing it except the full weight and might of State coercion and violence. Look beyond the coercion and violence, and all you see are the printing presses on worthless paper.

What a strange illusion we all live in today that rests solely on the restraint of the State from printing itself out of existence.

At some point there has to be a reckoning in which fiat currencies collectively collapse, and hopefully we go back to the gold standard? Or even better, allow "money" to be commoditized on the free market to prevent abuse inherent in monopolized currencies.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. . .

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Contemplating the Minimum Threshold for Individual Rights

For a "heavy hitter" philosophical debate, see below. But probably worthless to most people since the Utilitarian argument against spanking is overwhelming anti-spanking.

Kids don't have the same rights as a fully functional adult. The question is whether kids have more or less rights than a fully functional adult.

Even full grown adults, when they have dementia, or a severe mental illness, cannot be seen to have the same rights of a fully functional adult since they do not have either physical/mental capabilities to act competently.

There doesn't seem to be a clear line between what defines a "child" and what defines someone with a debilitating mental illness. So it's possibly more like a continuum. For example, if I'm physically preventing my child (which would be initiating violence) to not touch their penis to the urinal when they are age 3, that's "protective custody." But if I'm still doing that when they're age 13, then that can be seen infringing on the rights of my 13 year old who probably has full cognitive knowledge of what they're actually doing. Who knows? Maybe it's their "sexual preference" and they like the cold feeling of porcelain on their junk.

If "full rights" are only given to those deemed competent, and those who fail that standard receive rights that are on a continual scale from that standard, then the next question is who has the authority to measure that?

So, for example, to an "average IQ" person, someone with "Down Syndrome" would have less rights than an average person being in "protective custodian" with Guardianship. But isn't that all relative? We all operate to some degree of imperfect knowledge. The difference between ourselves and someone who with mental handicap is to the degree by which we have imperfect knowledge. One could argue that the genetic "hardware" of the individual with mental handicap is the measurement, rather than just being willfully ignorant of an average person who doesn't want to put in resources to gain more knowledge (can be described as a "software" limitation).

But how does one accurately measure whether the lack of knowledge is a "skill" or a "will" issue? Is it a "hardware" or "software" limitation of an individual that so hampers their mental capability requiring them to lose some of their rights and enter "protective custody?"

For children, we would say it's a "hardware" issue along with those with severe mental handicaps. They simply don't have the physical capacity and it would be impossible for them to have it unless they have "upgraded" hardware. For children, this "hardware" is gradually improving in its capacity as they age and their brains develop.

But once again, isn't this all relative? And who will be the authority to determine by what continuum of rights one receives as the "hardware" increases in potential?


Let's look into the future of a time where the average human now has literal "hardware" implanted in their brain, which we'll call "augmentation." Now these Augmentated humans are crazy, super smart with levels of knowledge where they literally have instant access to all of humanity of all time. In addition, they are neurally meshed with all other human beings so that they connect emotionally with all other human beings and can know what they are thinking (I recommend "Nexus" by Ramez Naam to explore this sci-fi world).

To us non-augmented individuals, wouldn't we see these augmented humans as being almost like demi-gods? Even today, the amount of knowledge I have compared to my father (who doesn't use the Internet), must seem like I'm some kind of crazy smart person simply because I know how to "Google" things. Any question in the world is at my fingertips. Yes, it takes effort. But compare me, augmented with the tools of "Google Now," and compare that with my father who has to ask his friends for advice, for which are super old and just as irrelevant as he is. We are all like demi-gods in knowledge compared to those who operated pre-Internet days.

[Let's take this a step further. Now imagine an Artificial Intelligence with perfect knowledge and instantaneous speeds to process. One second is equivalent to 1000 years of human development. The scope of the potential of AI and the "Singularity" will make even those with Augmentation to seem pitiful and limited.]

Now when it comes to the new "normal" of augmentation, won't the non-augmented humans be seen as "mentally retarded?" Just as we see today's "mentally disabled" as needing "protective custody," won't there one day be a time when we can declare the necessity of "protective custody" on non-augmented humans? Certainly from the perspective of those with augmentation, those who are non-augmented are clearly "retarded" in terms of "relativity" and "hardware."

Another look could be aliens who come down to Earth with intelligence so superior to us, that we look like ants to them. To the super aliens, we may not fit their standard of "competence" and we may be considered easily expendable, just as we easily step on ants. Can augmented-humans really be considered "human" anymore? "Augmented" humans with genetic manipulation will seem "alien" to us today.

To those in the future (or super aliens) with much greater "hardware" and mental capacity, wouldn't they corral all of us human beings on Earth for "our own protection" and put us all in "protective custody?"


Separate thought going back to the AI. Perhaps the AI will realize the greatest threat to human flourishing is the FREEDOM of humans to choose. If the AI has perfect knowledge (and we're going to assume perfect power as well controlling all the world's resources), if the AI knows our wants and needs better than we do (and can predict into the future what our needs and wants will be), AND if the AI can fulfill those wants and needs better than we can on our own, then would we, as humans, object to the AI removing our FREEDOM in order to live our life better than us?

We may reject the notion that "other people know how to live our lives better than we do," but what if you have an outside force that IN FACT does know how to live your life better than you do?

Do humans, in order to be happy, needs to have the FREEDOM to make bad choices? Is the freedom to make bad choices, within itself, a basic component for human happiness?

If given the choice to trust the recommendation of an AI versus doing it "your way" what would you choose if you knew the AI always made the "best" choice?

I tend to follow Google Maps religiously. Before, I wouldn't always trust it because it would often have errors, but now that it includes traffic in its calculation for the fastest route, I tend to err on the side of the directions. I've discovered that when I go a different route than Google Maps, I end up regretting it when I hit the unexpected traffic that Google Maps was trying to have me avoid. My mom and I have this argument all the time driving in Los Angeles with all the freeways. She has the "fastest way" in her mind, but then I'll tell her that I'm going to defer to the ALL MIGHTY GOOGLE MAPS with its traffic calculations instead.

What if we have a "Google Maps" but exponentially bigger that applies to the "road of life" for which we live? How many times will you have to veer "left" when the "AI of Life" tells you to veer "right", resulting in regret and the realization you should had followed the AI's directions?!!!!

Dating decisions? Job decisions? Home purchasing decisions? Who your friends are? etc. etc. the list goes on for the freedoms we have to make bad decisions, for which a Super AI may one day essentially guide us through life.

And then. . . you have the day when the power goes out. Without the Super AI. And now people have no ability to think for themselves since they relied on the Super AI to make ALL their life decisions. Aren't we already severely hampered when our Internet goes down? Our memory is gone. Our sense of direction is less developed. etc.

Ok. My brain is spent. Thanks for reading!


#20 - Live Reaction of Streaming Oregon Standoff Surrounded by FBI, Implications

What are the implications of using a live stream to keep the FBI & SWAT teams from attacking you?

What does it mean when you can listen live to the humanity of the "terrorists?"

I give my thoughts live as I listen to the last 4 holdouts of the Oregon Standoff as FBI have them surrounded and it seems like an assault is imminent.

LIVE call from Refuge -- FBI Seige Happening

Game Development for Teenagers


With all the high quality tools out there at low cost, I don't see why my kids can't get into game development instead of taking an hourly job.

Jason Kim Remember when you used to develop custom Counter-Strike maps? What if we had been born 20 years later still at home, with all our free time playing StarCraft & Counter-strike?

What kind of cool games could we had developed?

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Crony Capitalism vs. Bureaucratic Ineptitude


What is not considered are the lives, time, labor, and money lost due to purposely hampering technological innovation. The question is will beuracratic ineptitude win or Crony Capitalism?

Anti-Intellectualism's Prevelance


Anti-Intellectualism is the prevailing value in today's discourse on Truth. The question is whether it's "nature" or "nurture."

It's difficult to say considering the "dumbing down" and "group think" that is indoctrinated on our students through the Public School and "Higher" Education systems.

Regardless of the cause, I'm still trying to figure out the appropriate response to these anti-intellectuals (who typically are also self-unaware, and egotistical). There literally is no "reasoning" with these people, since they lack the skills to "Reason" properly.

In the mean time, I guess I'll continue on in the tradition of mocking the hypocrisies of the anti-intellectuals.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Beggars CAN be Choosers


What the? The "Freedom Fighters" using Government Coercion to prevent people from even the CHOICE to say "no" to Facebook Basic.

"I know how to live your life better than you do, so I'm going to use Government Violence to withhold choices from you."

Another example of misguided paternalism at the threat of a gun.

#19 - The Rational & Moral Case for Anarchy and the Non-Aggression Principle

Deontological, Deductive Reasoning for Private Governance / Voluntaryism / Libertarianism / Anarcho-Capitalism


Moral Absolutism is true []
Morality can be discovered through the use of Deductive Reasoning from these Axioms []

[The Meta Axioms can be generally understood as Deontology as a subset of Normative Ethics,]

“A PRIORI” (Independent of Experience)
VS. “A POSTERIORI” (Dependent on Experience / Empirical Evidence)


AXIOM 1 [A1]
The individual is the basic unit of moral concern []
AXIOM 2 [A2]
You own your own human essence (ie. body, mind, spirit) and the product of that essence (labor) []
AXIOM 3 [A3]
Unclaimed natural resources (ie. land, trees, etc.) become morally, and individually owned by mixing natural resources with human labor []
AXIOM 4 [A4]
A Government achieves its means through violence and the threat of violence on involuntary participants (“a monopoly on violence”)


The individual is not morally responsible for the actions of another individual unless directly involved
A Government is a group of individuals
A Government made up of individual moral units is bound by the same morality as the individuals by which it is formed


1. An individual has a right to their own Life (body & labor)
2. An individual has a right to their own Personal Property justly obtained
3. An individual has a right to not be interfered with by another individual if they are not violating #1 & #2 of another individual (Liberty)
The INITIATION of force by one individual against another (ie. theft, murder, slavery, fraud, and kidnapping) violates their Natural Rights through involuntary means and is therefore morally wrong ["Non-Aggression Principle"]
The only moral means to obtain Life or Personal Property from another individual is through voluntary and free exchange, and homesteading


Individuals may use violence (or appoint an Agent to use violence) in protection from an initiating Aggressor violating an individual’s Natural Rights
If the Non-Aggression Principle applies to individuals, then the Non-Aggression Principle should apply to individuals in a Government
Individuals in a Government that violate the Non-Aggression Principle are acting immorally
A Government that bombs non-aggressor individuals is immoral (Murder)
A Government that drafts through involuntary means is immoral (Slavery)
A Government that imprisons non-violent drug offenders is immoral (Kidnapping)
A Government that taxes through involuntary means is immoral (Theft)


Sunday, February 7, 2016

US Economics IS Foreign Policy


It really is in the "national interest" for the US to maintain, through costly wars and killing of innocents, the USD hegemony in oil sales as established by the petrodollar thanks to Nixon/Kissinger when the last vestiges of the gold standard were dismantled.

What happens when the rest of the Middle East finally gets sick of the petrodollar? What happens when Saudi Arabia collapses in its US supported dictatorship? What is the true value of the USD when printing trillions ofdollars is standard policy (AKA Quantitative Easing) and national debt doubles during the reign of a single President (both Bush and Obama)?

Yes, the military-industrial complex has blame in this, but the greater blame is the insatiable ignorance of the US electorate and the "greed" of its "entitlement" class to push politicians to greater depths of debt. Politicians ultimately are followers, and the "true leaders" are the ignorant masses. To feed and placate the masses on government handouts requires the US to be in perpetual war.

If you allow the rest of the world to freely choose which currency is strongest, without the use of coercion or threat of violence via the US military, the politicians/beuracrats know better than the electorate that the USD will collapse.

The Welfare Economy = Military State = State-Sponsored Terrorism

Friday, February 5, 2016

The Path of Least Resistance: Tyranny

Evil individuals and sociopaths, without limit to their religion (or anti-religion), Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, rich, poor, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, ideology, whether they are Capitalists or Socialists, Feminists, Social justice warriors, black lives matter, Regressive Left, PC Principle etc. are incentivized to gravitate toward WHERE they can use monopolistic powers to initiate violence on other individuals.

Is it not rational for these individuals to go down the path of least resistance to achieve their true aim: POWER? And what is the most cost effective way to achieve this POWER than through the mechanism by which has the monopoly to initiate violence: GOVERNMENT?

In the same way, when you look at a Democracy, where a large percentage of individuals are on Government payroll either through welfare benefits or direct employment, is it any surprise that they would vote in their own self interests regardless of the mechanism by which they receive the "benefit?"

After all, if two wolves and a sheep get to vote on what's for dinner, is it any surprise what the results will be? The wolves will make all sorts of intellectual arguments as to justify for themselves the initiation of violence on the sheep. And of course, the "sheep" are simply being "selfish" and "greedy" in order to protect themselves from the "tyranny of the masses." Thus is the reality of our society.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

A Confession on My Snobbery

I feel I must confess publicly.

On one podcast months ago I remembered hearing someone smart say they never wasted their time arguing privately with a Socialist. I interpreted that to mean also Progressives and everyone else I disagree with. Also, I think he meant the die hard intellectual Socialists that teach in Universities, and not the normal people I actually interact with that aren't as entrenched in their beliefs since most of the time they aren't familiar with Volunteerism.

So I've been challenging people to broadcast our disagreements live through YouTube and my Podcast. All, except for one, always decline.

Stupid me, had I offered a private conversation, perhaps I could have gained better understanding. Plus, I suspect I actually may enjoy these challenging conversations.

Does that mean I will offer a private conversation via phone call once Facebook discussions become lengthy? Or is there perhaps value in forcing the discussion via Public posts on Facebook?

I do see benefit for the lurkers who read the exchanges via Facebook that may get undermined if I start taking intellectual discussions private.

Are there any of you who regularly switch to telephone to discuss controversial Facebook posts? Any tips on the underlying philosophy?

Anarchism and Radical Decentralization Are the Same Thing


It is a valid question to wonder about the practicalities of Volunteerism. Would it become every man for themselves? Absolutely not. People would voluntary come together as social units under rules / laws for which one truly "chooses" to reside where the cost for exit is relatively small. Marriage, having children, Religion, employment, professional organizations, opening a business, etc. are one of many areas for which we voluntarily exchange our individual freedoms for benefits we perceive as being greater than the freedoms sacrificed.

One measurement toward how much you truly "choose" to transact with another individual is the level that you can simply "opt out," say "no," or move away.

The Founding Fathers had the concept right to provide for States to give more "choices" to its citizens. It's unfortunate that the 10th Amendment has been disregarded causing the monopoly we call the Federal Government. Luckily we're seeing more instances of State Nullification, a trend for which I hope occurs more often. The Free State Project provides a beacon of hope for New Hampshire and Act 20 / 22 to pay only 4% tax in Puerto Rico are other great options now available.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Anti-Capitalist Technologists

Individuals who decry "greed" as the great "sin" in our society, do so while typing on their smartphones / computers, using the Internet, and social media that's been fueled by this very same "evil" that they decry.

And let's not forget all the other advances in technology fueled by this great evil known as "greed" that these individuals also use on a daily basis.

They should be consistent in their moral views and live a life without "greed" which would require them to live without any personal possessions and in a technological state equal to direct subsistence from the land.

If only these "anti-greed" evangelists could hold up a mirror and see the true nature of their hearts: "envy." They believe "income inequality" within itself is a "bad thing" when even the poorest person's standard of living is better off thanks to "greed."

If only these individuals could see that "wealth" is not a zero-sum game. One man's riches, is not another man's loss. One man's riches is gained because they provided a benefit to another individual in a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange. This also assumes no Government intervention that holds a gun to your head and makes a monetary transaction involuntary.

#18 - Virtuous Immigrant Capitalist Hotel Owners vs. Progressive, Socialist Parasites

A white male asked this question in a Facebook Group called: Common Sense with Dan Carlin:

"In this world you want to create [in relation to Libertarian ideology], what would happen if you were born into a poor family. There is no free education, no subsidized healthcare, just what your family could afford. How much of your livelihood, your future, depends on the education and healthcare you receive before you can make decisions for yourself? In a post-modern, information age, how much will your labor be worth? Will you be able to support yourself in the future, could you support your own family? Would your children be destined to start at the same point you had?"


Here was my response:


AM I THE ONLY NON-WHITE PERSON IN THIS GROUP? This is NOT a hypothetical, but what goes on TODAY.

I'll give you some homework. Go to the dry cleaner's, nail salon, Teriyaki store, or Asian immigrant owned business and get to know the business owner. Talk to them about their life story, how much money they had when they immigrated to America, what life was like in their home country. Listen to how much they've suffered, and risked. Listen to how many hours they work. Listen to how much government "hand outs" they've received over the course of their life (oh wait, they weren't raised here, so they didn't get much).

And then after you hear all that, lecture them about how they're "exploiting" their workers and that they are horrible people for not paying their employees a "living wage." Then lecture them about how they should be paying maternity leave. And lecture them about how their GREED is destroying people's lives.

Lecture these immigrant entrepreneurs on how they're responsible for the income inequality for blacks and women. In fact, go to the inner-city, and find these Korean liquor store owners and tell them they need to pay reparations. Explain to them how impossible their poverty is, and they shouldn't even try to better their circumstance because they didn't get the proper "education" and proper government "entitlements."

Because many of these laws and regulations are intended to "balance the scales" for past / current perceived "injustices" that go on between the BLACK/WHITE narrative. WHITE GUILT. Get over it.

Asian entrepreneurs are proving false the typical "I'm the victim. I'm too poor" narrative. Get over yourselves, and stop punishing Asian entrepreneurs for the sins of the White man. Get to know the Asian entrepreneurs in your neighborhoods and open your eyes toward upward, economic mobility that doesn't require Government hand-outs.

Then, you will understand how more government regulations actually hurt opportunity, not for the hypothetical, but for the tangible, Asian immigrants living life next door to you right now.

Anatomy of the State:
An Honest Conversation with a Communist:


Public school portrayal

Robber Barrons
Child labour

Sweat shops

Need government to protect from evil capitalists
The exploiters

Minimum wage

Need the government.

Nature of government, coercion, violence
Nature of capitalism, voluntary interactions ("Clean Capitalism)
Vs. Crony Capitalism

What is money? Stored time, human labour, and natural resources

Both are better off
People will only choose actions for which they'll be better off

What does job creator mean

Not oppressor, but coordinator

Fat cats sitting on money
Capital reinvestment

Scrooge mcduck


Customers are the boss

Different scenarios