The purpose of regulation is to control through rational anxiety rather than dictatorial terror. Prior dictatorships
would shoot people, arrest and imprison them arbitrarily – this controlled people’s bodies very
effectively, but destroyed their entrepreneurial energies and motivations.
It is far more effective to regulate and license and tax – and this is true for all industries – because potential
dissidents then face their own foggy walls of vague anxiety – in which they will not face arrest and imprisonment,
but rather lengthy legal complications, which they may eventually win, but which drain much of the joy
out of living while they go on, month after month, year after year.
This is true for public-sector unions as well – we don’t make it illegal for a manager to fire a unionized employee,
because that would expose the system for the economic joke that it is – we just make it really, really
lengthy and complicated and emotionally draining and confrontational and exhausting – that is the true perfection
of soft totalitarianism. People will surrender to anxiety and still vaguely feel free – if you terrorize
them directly, they tend to just collapse intellectually and emotionally.
Background checks and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print high-capacity magazines at home. 3D printing is a new technology that shows great promise, but also requires new guidelines. Law enforcement officials should have the power to stop high-capacity magazines from proliferating with a Google search.
Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) • In a statement regarding the planned introduction of legislation which bans using 3D printing to print high-capacity magazines — something which a liberty-minded tech group called Defense Distributed has been all over in recent weeks with their Wiki Weapon project. The group actually had a fairly blunt response to Israel’s legislation: “Good f@&!ing luck.” This may be a first — an attempt to regulate 3D printing by a governmental body — so this will be interesting to watch. (via shortformblog)
The Best Way to Destroy Person Freedoms…
is to have the families of dead children behind you when you sign the law.
I bet they will get a pen that the President used.
No, the state is anything but the result of a contract! No one with even just an ounce of common sense would agree to such a contract. I have a lot of contracts in my files, but nowhere is there one like this. The state is the result of aggressive force and subjugation. It has evolved without contractual foundation, just like a gang of protection racketeers. And concerning the struggle of all against all: that is a myth. Of course the racketeer protects his victims on “his” territory from other racketeers, but only so he can conduct his own racket more successfully. Moreover, it is states that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction in the 20th century alone. Compared to that, the victims of private crimes are almost negligible.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe responding to the assertion: “the state is based on a social contract, which provides the individual with protection and space for personal fulfilment, which without the state he would not have—in a struggle of all against all.” (via laliberty)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Photo credit: David Farrer)
Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk 12-17-12 ~ Right-to-Work is Good for Business, Labor, and Liberty
This is causing universities to rethink their value to students,” says Professor Koller, who is from Stanford University’s computer science department. The most prestigious universities are always going to have enough demand for places - but the emergence of high-quality online courses could be tougher for middle-ranking institutions. Why would you pay high fees to sit through a mediocre lecture, when you could go online and watch world experts at another university, even if it’s in another country? “The universities in the middle will really have to think about their proposition,” she says.
Why I have next to no chance of ever getting hired.
1. I spoke out publicly on being Aspergers. This now days is a no no. Even if you do it to help others understand Aspergers. A lot of HR departments will search the web and find my name next posts talking about being Aspergers.
This makes me hire risk because of the ADA. They will see me as a lawsuit waiting to happen. Even if I despise such lawsuits.
2. I spoke out on politics publicly. Again this is a no no. Considering were I stand on politics and who is currently in the Whitehouse. Then my degree is also in an industry that is incredibly leftest. If you are libertarian, never get a entertainment based degree like me. You will never get work.
Again HR will search my name and come up with political posts with my name attached.
3. I have spoke out on student loans and the waste of college degrees. Another unpopular topic that one should never speck of if one wants work.
I have never passed one in my life. There for this tests are a barrier to me. A wall to my chances of employment. Personality is more important then skill now days. Personality also does not mean you can’t do the job ether. I can fake happy. It would be like a acting job. Pulse with some jobs, why do you have to be perky? Why is this a requirement?
In some stores were they have this personality tests. I have seen some of the most grumpy people in the world. Who can careless about their jobs. So if the personality tests are working. Why do they have the opposite in the types of people they hire?
5. Some employers will hire you based on your credit score and amount of debt. As an example. If you have a large amount of debt. You can’t get security clearance. Both in the private sector and the goverment.
With the amount of student debt I have racketed up. I have no why of getting these kinds of jobs.
6. I have no industry experience. Before the economy went into its nose dive. My industry of animation. The hire out from grads at my school was close to a 100%. After the economy fell on its face. The industry retroactively started to require three years of industry experience.
When you are fresh out of college how the hell are you expected to have 3 years of industry experience? I had a lot of employers who loved my work, but they were not willing to hire based on that sole fact I had no experience in the industry experience. “Sorry Joe we love your work but you have no experience!”
7. I am stuck loving with parents because of my lack of employment prospects. We I live. If you have a 4 year degree. You have no chance at work. It does not matter what degree it is. It could be in underwater basket weaving and you could not get hire.
Here is why. 1. You are considered a flight risk, they will think you will go for a better paid job the minute you find one. 2. Jealously on the part of the hiring mangers, “he has a degree and I don’t!” 3. The mangers fear you because of your degree. They think you are out for their job.
With all of this I have zero chance of ever getting hired by anyone, anywhere. There is no light at the end of my tunnel. It has caved in and is permanently blocked.
Is the Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional? (by LearnLiberty)
Does Congress possess the constitutional power to force its citizens to purchase health insurance? Prof. Elizabeth Price Foley says that’s the key question in the Supreme Court challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court must decide whether the “individual mandate” portion of the law falls under Congress’s power to “”regulate commerce,” as enumerated by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Prof. Foley argues that whether or not you personally support the health care legislation, you should be worried about the precedent that the individual mandate would set. If the power to regulate commerce is interpreted as including the power to force people to buy something, then that power doesn’t just apply to health care. It would give Congress the power to make individuals buy anything, which poses a significant threat to individual liberty.
Prof. Foley worked with the Institute of Justice to file an amicus brief on the case: http://www.ij.org/health-insurance-reform-a-the-supreme-court