Sunday, June 26, 2016

Ancestral Homelands

"These are our ancestral homelands. We have a right to defend our people and our culture."
~Mideast Mohammedan
"These are our ancestral homelands. We have a right to defend our people and our culture."
~Shinto Japanese
"These are our ancestral homelands. We have a right to defend our people and our culture."
~European Christian
Which of these statements is "xenophobic"? If one of them qualifies, why not the other two? Can you blame one group of people for seeing a vicious double standard at work?

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

"Ought" Statements Presuppose a Spiritual Realm

Geoff wrote:

> Aye, it seemed that every paragraph contained incomplete edits. But it
> makes some good points.
>
> In a purely materialistic world, everything we do is determined by our
> chemical composition. There is no "ought" and "ought not" in a purely
> material world, there is only "can" and "can not." I guess in truth, there
> is only "X will inevitably happen due to the laws of physics" and "X will
> not inevitably happen due to the laws of physics."
>
> Without an immaterial individuating principle, there is no foundation for
> the notion of "free will." If there is no free will, then all human law,
> all prisons, all courts, are a complete charade. (That's not to say that
> they aren't in, fact, a charade in Realityville, where we live, but that's
> for a different reason.)
>
> In a purely material world, we are merely clumps of matter that happen to
> manipulate other clumps of matter, and morality has no place in such a
> world. But strict materialists still *act* as though there is some sort of
> objective moral law. The cheek! I mean, if you punch a materialist in the
> face, he still *objects* to it, even though his getting punched in the
> face
> was simply predestined by your chemical composition. It's really as
> rational as complaining about being struck by a meteorite. The laws of
> physics simply made it inevitable for you to be hit.
>
> (Pro Tip: When a materialist objects to getting his face punched, be sure
> to put on a shocked, indignant face and say, "Don't *judge *me!")
>
> -Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM,
>
>> A thought provoking essay in pjmedia.com by Richard Fernandez. We are
>> probably fucked. This piece needs some serious editing but is worth
>> your
>> time.
>>
>> https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/03/27/terminal-depression/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>

Sunday, June 05, 2016

And the Ball is Free (in Russian)!

Sean McDonough's call is followed by the call in Russian. I'm still waiting for the call in Latin.

http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/michigan-blown-snap-on-final-play-of-game-hands-win-to-1737138674

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Immigration and Abortion

Open-border libertarians exhort closed-border libertarians to man up. Shrug off the mass-immigration subsidies and forced-association laws, neither of which would exist in the absence of the State, and welcome migrating alien and hostile cultures in your midst.

Closed-border libertarians exhort open-border libertarians to man up. Shrug off the barriers to migration, which wouldn't exist in the absence of the State, and resist the migrating alien and hostile cultures in your midst.

True anarchists know which position to take. They learned everything they need to know from that thorny abortion-rights controversy.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Rights Require Faith!

Isn't it odd how Rights require you to believe in things that aren't empirically verifiable and yet the Rights theorists balk at calling their belief in Rights faith? Rights may be part of reality. But they require faith, because there's no way in sensory-sensual space-time to prove they're real.
A helluva lot of us anarchists think they're real, though. Why don't Rights just show themselves and come live among us? Then they'd be real and everyone would believe!
Imagine! No more arguments between Randroids and Rothbardians and Catholic monarchists about "reproductive rights," slant-drilling, intellectual property, hitting the cut-off man, and ensuring non-combatants' safety in "organized" hostilities! O what a wonderful world it would be!

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Don't Step on Sidewalk Cracks!

Drunk on the First Amendment, crackpot on a soapbox in the park preaches. Those who step on sidewalk cracks, he says, don't break their mamas' backs. No, it's much worse than that--they go to hell!
His innovative vision of rights wins him scores of followers. They proceed scrupulously to avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks. "Goose-Stepping Cracked Ignoramuses," the wags call them.
The preacher violates his followers' rights how? Does he annoy you? Why? What do you propose to do about it? Violate his right to free speech?

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

And the Ball is Free!