Category Archives: Private Property

Private Property Solves THE POTTY Problem

Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Private Property

First, one would hope that even creepy Ted Cruz would, like Donald Trump, open his home to Caitlyn Jenner, “reality-TV star and gold-medal-winning Olympian who competed as Bruce Jenner.”

Trump was right to rely on libertarian sensibilities when he said, on “The Today Show,” that in his Trump Tower, “Caitlyn Jenner would be free to use any bathroom she wanted.”

Trump Tower belongs to Trump.

Of course, the North Carolina bathroom law, that “bans people from using bathrooms that don’t match the sex indicated on their birth certificate,” demonstrates why government should not own any property and should certainly not have a say as to how private property is managed.

It ought to be up to private property proprietors to decide what kind of bathrooms they wish to offer at their establishments.

Myself, I’d avoid establishments that don’t offer strict, separate, “ladies” and “gents” loos. I don’t think it’s safe. Women-only bathrooms have worked quite well for women. You never have to think, “It’s late at night, I hope there’s no scary or creepy looking man in there and I am not allowed to carry.”

Scenes from “Dressed To Kill”:

On A New Trick From The Feds’ Funny-Money Bag of Tricks

Debt, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Private Property

Its old tricks are bad enough, but when an wrecking-ball like the Federal Reserve Bank tries something “new,” there’s even more reason to be afraid:

“T]here is something new [and ominous] in the present [quantitative easing] cycle,” warns Murphy, Robert P. Murphy, in the latest Mises Institute “Austrian.”

“The Fed is trying to raise rates while simultaneously maintaining its bloated balance sheet. It is attempting to pull off a magic trick whereby it can keep all of the ‘benefits’ of its earlier rounds of monetary expansion (i.e., “quantitative easing” or “QE”) while removing the artificial stimulus of ultra-low interest rates. …”

“Raising interest rates without selling assets,” gives us “the worst of both worlds.

We still get the economic effects of “tighter monetary policy,” because the price of credit is rising as it would in a normal Fed tightening. Yet we don’t get the benefit of a smaller Fed
footprint and a return of assets to the private sector. Instead, the US taxpayer is ultimately paying subsidies to lending institutions to induce them to charge more for loans, while the big banks and Treasury still benefit from the effective bailout they’ve been getting for years. …

Important reading: “The Fed Can’t Save Us” by Robert P. Murphy.

Donald Trump’s Outlandish Abortion Comments Mirror Republican Confusion

Donald Trump, Law, Private Property, Republicans

In defense of Donald Trump’s outlandish abortion comments; Republicans themselves are vague and confusing on the matter. I’ve never heard a Republican say outright that “only the person performing the abortion should be punished.” If this is the official GOP position, it seems as bizarre as Trump’s statement. I can see why he was confused. Why punish service provider and not service seeker?! (Don’t tell me; spare me.)

Background via BBC News:

US presidential hopeful Donald Trump has withdrawn a call for women who have abortions to be punished, only hours after suggesting it.

He had proposed “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions if they were made illegal.

But after strong criticism, Mr Trump repeated the Republican party line that only the person performing the abortion should be punished, not the women.

The Republican front-runner supports a ban on abortions, with some exceptions.

Abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973 after a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment has the power to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal.

I would have thought that Republicans ought stick to reality. In America, “women have the right de jure to screw and scrape out their insides to their heart’s content.” The only question is, should taxpayer rights, especially the rights of the anti-abortion faithful, be compromised to fund the procedure.

I would have thought that Republicans ought to explain that when feminists and their media lickspittles speak of “abortion rights,” they mean federal funding for abortion. Nothing else. A “right” to undergo an abortion is to be distinguished from a right to federal funding of your abortion. Don’t conflate “abortion rights” with federal funding for abortion.

More about the distinction in “From Benghazi To The Abortion Killing Fields.”

But Republicans have, understandably, confused Mr. Trump. By now, Trump, however, should no longer be winging it.

UPDATED (5/3): TRUMPVille: Immigration, Cons For Amnesty & Assassination, CPUKE, Cruze, Marco N’ Max

Conservatism, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Private Property, Republicans

Comments Off on UPDATED (5/3): TRUMPVille: Immigration, Cons For Amnesty & Assassination, CPUKE, Cruze, Marco N’ Max

Written by on