Category Archives: libertarianism

WATCH: UPDATED (8/1): Humor Alert: When Democrats And Pelosi’s Republican Poodles Weep; There Is Mirth In the Vance-Mercer Studio

Comedy & Humor, Conservatism, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Culture, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

2 Replies

WATCH: David and I discuss the ins-and-outs of the Jan. 6 Committee, also the Democrats’ September 11: Menstrual America Vs. MAGA America.

When Democrats and Pelosi’s Republican Poodles Weep; There is Mirth in the Vance-Mercer Studio:

The harder the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi’s Republican poodles wept—the greater was the mirth in the David Vance and ilana Mercer studio. Our superstar of a producer was in stitches, too. Good times.

UPDATE (8/1/021): Humor Alert: I never watch my own videos. So did I REALLY ask David, of https://HardTruthWithDavidVanceAndilanaMercer.podbean.com/, if Speaker Pelosi has a drinking problem? A viewer insist I did. David agrees.

https://rumble.com/embed/vhxj2z/?pub=fyb9t

Must something manifestly hilarious be marked with a “Humor Alert” before people allow laughter? Maybe Brits and their South African former subjects have a different sense of humor? This appended comment is way funny, too. Learn Brit humor:

Mercer Memorial-Day Message Same Since 2009

America, Homeland Security, Israel, Just War, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, War

2 Replies

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”—ilana mercer

I have published this message every Memorial day, since 2009, softened slightly for taste.

Robert Glisson, a veteran and a longtime reader—where are you, Robert?—was once asked to write an op-ed for Barely A Blog about the “Patriot Guard Riders.” The op-ed, entitled “For The Love of A Brother-In-Arms, And ‘Big Brother’ Be Damned,” was prefaced with this comment:

“I do not identify with the military mission, but who can fault the humanity of the effort?”

It is the habit on the Memorial Day weekend to thank uniformed men for their sacrifice. And it is the annual custom on Barely A Blog to extend sympathies to the Americans who fight phantoms in far-flung destinations. I’m sorry they’ve been snookered into living, dying and killing for a lie. But I cannot honor that lie. I mourn for them, as I have from day one.

I am sorry for those who’ve enlisted thinking they’d fight for their countrymen and were subjected to one backdoor draft after another in the cause of illegal, unjust wars and assorted informal attacks. My heart hurts for you, but my worshiping at Moloch’s feet will not make you feel better, deep down.

I honor those sad, sad draftees to Vietnam and to WW II. The first valiant batch had no option; the same goes for the last, which actually fought a just war. I grew up in Israel, so I honor those men who stopped Arab armies from overrunning our homes. In 1973, we came especially close to annihilation.

I can legitimately claim to know of flesh-and-blood heroes who fought so that I could emerge from the bomb shelter (in the wars of 67 and 73) and proceed with my kid life. I always stood in their honor and wept when the sirens wailed once a year. Wherever he is, every Israeli stops on that day and stands still in remembrance. We would have been physically overrun by Arabs if not for those brave men who defended the homeland—and not some far-away imperial project—with their bodies.

But can we Americans, in 2021, make such a claim? Can we truly claim that someone killed an Iraqi, Afghani, Yemeni, Libyan or Syrian so that we may … do what? Remind me?

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”

How fast the so-called small-government types forget that the military is government. As explained in “Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program“:

“When Republicans and conservatives cavil about the gargantuan growth of government, they target the state’s welfare apparatus and spare its war machine. Unbeknown to these factions, the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small. Conservative can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.”

“Classical Liberalism And State Schemes“ further suggests how the military, as an arm of the state, can become antithetical to the liberty of its own citizens and the world’s citizens:

We have a solemn [negative] duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to uphold their rights. Why? Because (supposedly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—their lives, liberties, and livelihoods. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first.
“philanthropic” wars are transfer programs—the quintessential big-government projects, if you will. The warfare state, like the welfare state, is thus inimical to the classical liberal creed. Therefore, government’s duties in the classical liberal tradition are negative, not positive; to protect freedoms, not to plan projects. As I’ve written, “In a free society, the ‘vision thing’ is left to private individuals; civil servants are kept on a tight leash, because free people understand that a ‘visionary’ bureaucrat is a voracious one and that the grander the government (‘great purposes’ in Bush Babble), the poorer and less free the people.”

DeSantis Law Doesn’t Give Private Citizens Deserving, Unfettered Access To The Social Media Super Highway

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Law, libertarianism, Natural Law, Regulation, Republicans, Technology

2 Replies

From the fact that Ron DeSantis is the only Republican to have proceeded against Deep Tech in any meaningful way—it doesn’t follow that his bill, the “Big Tech” bill, is useful or fair to the Little Guy or Gal. Not unless he or she is prepared to and can afford to launch law suits.

All you and I really want, as innocent, law-abiding individuals, is to have unfettered access to the social-media public square.

Politicians, of course, get protections, no problems. DeSantis has made “it illegal for large technology companies to remove candidates for office from their platforms in the run-up to an election.”

Close to useless tokenism in solving Deep Tech tyranny.

Yes, the Section 230 grant-of-government privilege should be done away with, but this more conventional solution is insufficient for the reasons DeSantis’ law is insufficent.

The only two best solutions are, my own: 1. Civil rights based litigation and the setting of a Supreme Court precedent, a direction I first floated in “Deep Tech: Locked Down And Locked Out, First By The State, Then By Silicon Valley,” and have motivated for repeatedly.

2. Declare social media platforms to be free speech, censorship-free spheres, a Richard Spencer idea. Republicans will have to contend with speech they don’t like.

*Image credit

Populist Or Centralizer? Boris Johnson Undermines Local Authority

Britain, Business, Elections, libertarianism, Populism, Private Property, Secession

1 Reply

Progressive and “conservative” corporatists think that NIMBYism, Not In My Backyard initiatives, is an economic and political problem when it involves the Little Guy fighting to conserve his community’s landscape and way of life—often by rejecting the enforced settlement of refugees and illegal immigrants, as well as by opting out of development.

The Economist detests NIMBYism because, from its perspective, it’s development uber ales (above all): The paper approves of Boris Johnson’s “promises to reform the planning system, which allows homeowners to veto development and thus condemns Britons to live in expensive rabbit-hutches.”

Oh, no, homesteaders can’t be allowed to “veto development.”

But even The Economist disapproves of Boris Johnson’s usurpation of local authorities:

“Mr Johnson’s solution to the problem of NIMBYism is to limit local authorities’ say on planning, giving central government more control over development. Whether or not he will really face down angry suburbanites in the Home Counties over new houses—he has already bottled out of a previous attempt—this approach derives from the fundamental problem with Johnsonism: his tendency to grab power. If local authorities do not want development, Mr Johnson’s answer is not to give them more say over taxation and thus an incentive to grow, but to force them to accept it. If parts of the country are poor, his answer is not to allow them to develop their own growth strategies, but to create a central fund to give them money.

MORE.

*Image: Screen pic via The Economist.