Haha, do a de-Marinecorpsification Manual (out with the yut, in with the you!)
RagnarD - i thought that was related to the project, but that was close to the idea i was giving her and she didnt like
Malachi - thats actually not a bad idea. kind of like get the inner statist out. Hmmmm… I’m going to email her that and see if its acceptable. I think it will be…
You can no longer assume that because a person is fat, he must necessarily also be stupid. Its no longer socially acceptable to fart on people. Stuff like that I guess
There is something called ‘getting fired’ so work is no longer spending the day napping between smoke breaks and sharing pictures of the girls you banged the previous weekend.
If only one could get fired from the suck! Ha HA!
Yah, no more 2 hour lunches either. Also, no more duty. But put a bandaid over the tattoo of a bayonet plunging into a communist’s eye, that you for some reason, had put on your forearm.
A few months ago my girlfriend who works at homeland security did an audit on 1200 expensive radios for field agents… 900 are missing…in only year later. No penalty just reordered them.
thought yall would like to know.
Thanks - my blood pressure was starting to get too low.
Girlfriend working at homeland security? How do you feel about that?
Lol not good. We aren’t dating anymore ( well its complicated and won’t go into detail).
She has no clue what I ever talk about and thinks im so insensitive when I explain obamacare (that type of person). The good news is she is incompetent and only got the job because she is female. And will hold the same rank in 2 years as my old civilian officer in charge who served for over 50 because of it.
Lol yeah I don’t think I could bear it. I don’t mind if someone’s like working at a national park or something, but someone who’s actively oppressing people…
Some random thoughts on market solutions, or individual solutions, as opposed to state solutions:
So say there’s a problem, like workers have shitty working conditions. On the one hand you can pass a law which immediately improves them: shortening the workday, increasing pay and making the equipment safer. Now of course there will be external disadvantages from this such as unemployment or more expensive goods, but internal ones also in comparison to individual solutions. An individual solution would be confederate-unionism, unionizing along a chain of production, waiting until a particularly important time of the year and shutting down all shipping and manufacturing operations, or running around spreading terrible press about the company’s poor treatment of the workers. This solution requires the creativity and action of the discontented, simply put: their best. What is the result? A society of constant synthesis: if problems are dealt with, with creativity and dynamism, not only can optimal solutions be reached, wherein workers work-conditions improve and there’s no institutional employment or high prices, but new institutions emerge. New mutual societies flourish from communities formed around a struggle as happened with the Knights of Labor, who intended to get their own factory, until the Haymarket Affair and subsequent bad press spelled their downfall. This is something to think about when someone offers a state solution to a problem, which “must” be addressed, that it will be a clunky and static synthesis. With an individualistic response the synthesis can be continual and have positive externalities. To paint a picture: instead of state unionism with all of its make-work projects, intimidation and monopolization, voluntary unions poking and prodding employers towards better conditions. Instead of political impetuses towards more federal spending, an atmosphere of spontaneous synthesis, perhaps actual union-manager conversation rather than the co-opting of union bosses into the company structure and cooling down the workers with wages. I don’t mean to sound vulgar by saying any of this, but necessity is the mother of invention. I would’ve been interested to see what would happen on the American Labor scene in the gilded age had there been private courts and the non-occurrence of the Pullman strike quelling, or at least a more limiting immigration policy.
Free labor vs. Free business seems more and more to me, dare I say it: a third position.
The catch? More effort on the side of those who have to deal with it. One can’t be apathetic. But it also really does require a level playing field. In the example of labor v manager, the state can’t artificially restrict managerial positions otherwise this type of thing just won’t work the way it’s supposed to. It would also help if there aren’t floods of immigrants coming into the country to cool down every strike with fresh waves of workers. It takes a degree of freedom which is doesn’t exist today and almost but didn’t exist in 1880.
Maybe I’m late on this, but Jets’ Tebow trademarking ‘Tebowing’
The devout Christian says his representatives filed on his behalf not for financial gain, but “to just control how it’s used, make sure it’s used in the right way.”
What a jackass, I’m going to Tebow at black metal shows now.
PJ O’Rourke: We live in an age of “1984”-Lite
Well, Animal Farm sticks in everybody’s mind. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Again, something read twice. I read it for the first time when I was 14 or 15 and it was a funny story about badly behaved animals and then I read it again at college and someone pointed out to me that this was sharp social satire. I thought it was an animal story, a kids’ book, but when I took another look at it I realised what he was getting at. The Soviet leadership was pretty well represented there. But one of the things that’s interesting to me about both Animal Farm and 1984 is that they are warnings against collectivism from a man of the left. Sure, any old Tory or Republican might be likely to make this point, though not so well, perhaps, nor so amusingly, but the fact that it comes from a man of the left is interesting. It seems to me to be something Orwell never fully came to grips with. Maybe if he’d lived longer…
What do you mean?
The necessity for collectivism under his leftist ideals and yet the danger of collectivism no matter who it’s done by seems like something he really wrestled with. I think we all buy the necessity for collectivism in a way. I consider myself to be pretty politically conservative, though it has a somewhat different meaning in America – none of the Lords and wondering whether or not bishops should vote in parliament.
A brilliant quote by a person on the Daily Paul:
The founders (most of them) couldn’t throw off the idea that people need permission to be free. They needed a “law” to permit freedom . . . and they needed a “government” to make the law . . . and they needed “taxes” to pay for it . . . and it was all downhill from there.
In the latest William Norman Grigg article, Mr. Grigg linked to this little interesting bit of information from the government:
So, maybe I’m missing something, but the US Attorney’s office in Idaho collected $84 million dollars in the fiscal year 2012, and only $854,896.85 went to actual victims of crimes? It sounds like Clayton is spot on when he says the government is very efficient at its true purpose.
Earthquake predictions and a triumph of scientific illiteracy in an Italian court
Italian court ruling sends chill through science community
Just wow. Gives these a quick read.
I saw those earlier today; absolutely bone-chilling and an indication of how terribly badly we need to stop the present insanity (NWO etc.)
Clayton -
A few questions about MES and HA
Should these be read back to back? If so, in what order?
Are there any specific books that should be read before one or both of them?
Should they be read sooner rather than later?
To add to the third question, here’s a concern of mine: I read both of them early on, and gain a good understanding of Austrian econ. Thus, future easier books, e.g. What Has Government Done to Our Money?, seem redundant, and less fun to read.
Or, I read them later, having already read the classics like WHGDtOM, AGD, etc.? and I’m underwhelmed by them.
Thoughts?
Thanks
Just watched the Presidential Debate.
Honestly, after seeing that, looking back, there was no way that they would have ever let a guy like Ron Paul get in. They want more and more noise, just as they always have.
Mr. President (and Mr. Romney) - the 1980s called, and they want their drug policy back. While you’re at it, let 1984 know that we still have their warantless wiretapping and indefinite detention.