There is nothing people working together voluntarily cannot do. It is bad enough to say that we must employ violence for the sake of exigency, but it is downright sinister to suggest that voluntary cooperation is incapable of doing those things.

Defense: It's you and your neighbor in the woods and a bear keeps getting into your camps. What do? You would grab your best weapons and team up to kill the bear. There you go, voluntary defense. And I'm supposed to believe that today's modern innovations in automation and productivity couldn't handle defense?  There. That's the hardest one.

Governance: It's you and your neighbor in the woods and you want to come up with rules that will define your interactions. Don't barge in, knock. Things like that. Well what do you know - individuals have mechanisms to reduce conflict. One modern example is the contract.

Courts: It's you and your neighbor in the woods. You say he stole your pig. He says he didn't - it w…

Holy Shit, Harry Truman!

Found this little gem from the letters of Harry S. Truman:

 I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Wills says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, and then threw what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Arica, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.                                       --Harry S. Truman

How about that? Selections of that are in this meme: 

Holy shit!
See the whole letter here:

Net Neutrality

I say this to both sides:

1) The ISPs are total assholes. They buy political influence and use it to keep out competitors. You must pay them, even if you don't like their policies, or pay for even more expensive internet options, which is a real big inconvenience. I definitely agree that it's not ideal that these ISPs - these federal-, state-, and locally-empowered artificial monopolies - aren't exactly the ideal gatekeepers of the internet, so there's that. I have every expectation that someone will want to make money by peacefully side-stepping the bottleneck of the ISPs.

2) The US Federal Government are even bigger assholes. These guys are the source of the political power the traditional ISPs wield. You must pay them or you will be forcibly seized and put into a cage. They spend your money on mass murder abroad and intruding into our private affairs domestically.  I sure as hell wouldn't want the Feds to be in charge of the internet. The less, the better. They …


How to address the issue of Nazis and Communists having ever more heated exchanges with each other: Counter-protest.

Normally, I'm not much in favor of protesting or counter-protesting. I don't think it should be banned or anything, but I think most of the time it's counter-productive and for most participants simply an opportunity to signal to all their great and indomitable virtue.  Plus things can get out of control as we saw with the recent Nazi/Antifa brough-ha-ha.

What I propose is a sort of un-protest. Picture this: 500 Nazis and 100 Antifa are set to clash in some public area. As tensions rise and knuckles turn white, thousands of people appear in the area. None of them are chanting. None of them have signs. They arrive and stand a safe and respectful distance away from any physical altercations and silently WATCH. No talking, no arguing, no chanting

Perhaps they record the event with their cellphones, or perhaps turn their backs entirely. If one of their own steps …

If it were a snake, it'd have bit you.

There's a phrase you hear sometimes, when you're looking for something and someone else finds it (or they observe you finding it), that goes, "It it were a snake, it'd have bit you."

This strikes me as an odd phrase. If it were a snake, it would not have bitten me, because I didn't once go near it.  More later, perhaps.

Tax Refunds and Obamanomics

Laissez-faire economics is NOT a zero-sum game, but socialists either think it is or pretend it is - so they're either being stupid or mendacious.

I like the parable of the group of men who go to lunch every day. I'll try to get the math right:

10 men go out to eat lunch at their favorite restaurant every day. The bill always comes to $100. They decided early on to divide the bill based on how much each of them earns: The investment banker earns the most money and pays $70 of the total bill. The lawyer and the doctor contribute $8 apiece. Then the architect and the small business owner pay $5 each. The next four men pay $1 each and the unemployed man pays nothing for his meal. Note that no one but the rich man pays more than his share of the bill - $10.

One day, the owner of the restaurant decides to reward his loyal customers with a discount. He offers to take $10 off of their bill: He pays out the refund as a percentage of each man's contribution. The rich man gets $7, the …


No one knows what the effects of various emissions are. Scientists build computer models and run simulations based on various assumptions. Some of those computer models predict things like a 15 foot rise in oceans over the next 10 years and those scientists get truckloads of money delivered to them to continue their research. Some models show a negligable effect or even a positive effect in the form of preventing the next glaciation cycle (ice age, if you will - although we're still in one) and those scientists get tarred and feathered by their numerous detractors as tools of "big oil".

The money, by the way, comes primarily from various groups who use "climate change" or "global warming" or "environmentalism" as an excuse to promote their anti-globalization, anti-technology, anti-human socialist agenda. THEY get the money from well-meaning but ultimately foolish people who believe as gospel the pronouncements of the research that suits their…