Episode 349 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following questions from Quora: “How would libertarian society keep individuals from devolving into chaos?”; “Isn’t libertarianism incompatible with nationalism?”; “What does it take for someone to finally admit their religion or political ideology is wrong?”; and a look at the flagpole challenge to the Non-Aggression Principle by David Friedman.
Out of all the major political movements on Earth, none is more Orwellian than “social justice.” No other movement is so dedicated to achieving the opposite of what its slogans proclaim – or so aggressive in the warping of language. While every ideology is prone to a little doublethink, “social justice” is doublethink at its core.
No matter how awful their country is, people love to proclaim their undying devotion to folk and land. Why then have hundreds of millions of people left their countries of birth? Because the migrants don’t literally believe this flowery talk. Though almost everyone voices these sentiments, actions speak louder than words.
It’s interesting to me how Brexit is portrayed by the statist media as a step backwards. Like anyone who is intelligent should understand it’s a disaster to pull out of a Big State, and only rubes would want such a thing. And, obviously, it’s going to lead to starvation and chaos in the streets. How ridiculous.
Today (9/1) is the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II, the deadliest violent conflict in human history. Death tolls vary, but often reach 80 million souls. What caused it? Lists of proximate causes never end, but the only credible “root cause” is simply: ideas.
According to Reason’s online publication, Benjamin Franklin once said, “No nation was ever ruined by trade.” Then a Facebook friend and I engaged in an amicable dispute about Franklin’s intent relative to the word “nation.” My friend said it was a stand-in for “government.” I responded.
To the best of my understanding, the lack of ethical consistency in today’s culture has led, and continues to lead people toward further social, economic, and foreign policy disasters. For this reason, I wanted to go over the concept of ethical consistency as I see it, the definition of the term, and some examples of how it’s applied in real world scenarios.
“Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,” US president Donald Trump announced in his State of the Union address in February. His base, as he had hoped, cheered him on in setting himself up as foil to Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In the three months since, though, Trump has doubled down on his own socialist policy proposals.
I’m not sure when I stopped reading newspapers, but they fell out of my favor when I was a freshman in college. My professor for Advanced Composition used the local papers in every class to present to us examples of horrendously poor writing.
To ask the question is almost to answer it. People who would balk at city, state, or regional protectionism will not only tolerate national protectionism, but actually hail it as a godsend for overall national prosperity. The doctrine of nationalism, a dangerous brew in which Americans have long indulged to great excess is the cause of this bizarre public sentiment.