the IDIOT

LRC’s dunce david kramer needs an editor. badly. this would drop his LRC blog output by ~95%.

in his first post today he asserts that there are not three ways a state raises money, but two. this is because “borrowing” must always be paid back with stolen wealth.

good point in isolation, but what of his sticking with counterfeiting and theft as the two remaining ways? absurd. there is only one method of the state enriching itself, and it is theft. this includes “borrowing”, “taxation”, and counterfeiting (printing “money” others are forced — as in force — to use).

update 20100901:
what a fucking undeservedly arrogant bootlick child. he now writes, (more…)

how the LRC/LvMI children swoon over “Judge Napolitano”, loving his goon title, always adoring their smoking-jacket guild codes. professor schzmurfl, how lovely to see you! doctor wharbenfhratzen, you are presenting a paper at this conference? doctor-representative paul, your truly exceptional holiness! pope ratzmyass, consecrate my shorts!

fucking horrible.

anyone else perplexed and mildly disgusted watching anti-”IP” types regularly invoking the official copyblight word or symbol (©) of the world’s most powerful official crime squad? they’ll even do it in books refuting copyblight. lew rockwell asserts a permission power for articles, attempting to impose conditions on reprinting (“Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.”).

fuck copyblight, fuck “copyleft” — all built on the jackass premise that your control of a work extends beyond your scarce property, into the presses and minds of other individuals. if you understand this, have some balls and conform your vaunted traditional statist insignia and dogma with reality; trash them.

well, i’ve had it with morons bleating “Broken Window Fallacy”, in error, every lone indicator they sniff. this post will be updated with whatever fun bullshit’s written to me in the comments of this vid from here.

as with much argument, asserting BWF w/o foundation is simply cowardly straw man for the sole purpose of making your opponent look stupider than his argument alone. what appeals so strongly to “BWF!” bleaters is precisely how obviously stupid the fallacy is. however, it’s so stupid that even most stupid masochists of the state don’t assert it outside of their holy war fixation. the BWF-bleaters want the associated absurdity tainting their opponents without the opponents meeting all the criteria of BWF, the most outrageous of which being acclaim for and defense of a destruction layer before the layers dealt with as a complete package elsewhere in bastiat’s book.

my initial comment on the vid: (more…)

The Importation of Intelligent Thought

Posted by Butler Shaffer on July 25, 2010 03:07 PM

My wife and one of my daughters prevailed upon me, this morning, to make a trip to our favorite French restaurant to pick up some wonderful French pastries for them. The woman who waited on me at the pastry counter was probably in her fifties, with a decided European — probably German — accent. After boxing up my selections, she informed me that the charge was “$13.90.” I replied that “1390 was probably an interesting year.” She responded “that was after the Dark Ages,” to which I added “yes, but the Dark Ages were not as bad or as ‘dark’ as we have been conditioned to believe.” She agreed, reminding me that 1390 was “about the start of the Renaissance.” As I drove home, I wondered with how many other persons I would have to engage in such a conversation to get similar responses.

“Intelligent Thought”. WTF. $13.90? “ah yes, i’ve something for that. ahem…

“Probably an interesting year!”

pant. pant.

“oh well, sir, allow me to retort. and here i go.”

ponder the probable instant orgasm if his verbal noise partner had quoted a latin phrase. there’s a nirvana anecdote for the smoking jacket crowd.

this guy pretends to study economics? i’m laughing at you, fraggle stick:

Why Are Environmentalists Complaining . . .

Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on June 1, 2010 10:29 AM

. . . about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? If the oil wasn’t being spilled into the gulf it would be refined into gasoline, pumped into our cars, and producing more air pollution. Aren’t they opposed to that, too? Isn’t that why they all drive around in those funny looking little toy “hybrid” cars?

the sort of nonsensical snide-shit the average LRC blogger thinks funny. let’s all have a collegial knob rub, if you will.

and BTW, pollyanna overcompensating douches at LRC, oil spills suck. they are not groovy. lew sets the silly tone, and the lemmings charge. all hail oil spills! something-something in latin!

retards.

chris manion’s apparently lost it. this post is worse than on its face, for he used to know aristotelian logic.

Pride Goeth Before The Fall

Posted by Christopher Manion on May 16, 2010 02:42 PM

The word “tragedy,” properly employed, denotes a particular genre of drama or literature that features a main character defined by one dictionary as a person “impelled by moral weakness or psychological maladjustment” – or hubris — “exaggerated pride or self-confidence.”

So I find it interesting that a Detroit police chief calls the shooting of seven-year-old Aiyana Jones by a SWAT team member “a tragedy of unspeakable magnitude to Aiyana’s parents.”

So Aiyana’s parents are the ones “impelled by moral weakness or psychological maladjustment… and exaggerated pride or self-confidence”?

(more…)

scary how often dilberts from LRC and LvMI distort quotes and reshape articles to fit their spin. douglas french writes,

Jonathon and Brandy Miller are suing homebuilder Hovnanian because after buying their home for $360,000 in 2006 it’s now worth $164,500 and “We just feel like we’ve been wronged,” Jonathon Miller, is quoted as saying. [...]

(more…)

normally, people calling themselves libertarian writers/educators completely screw in at least two major ways the beginning of the battle for freedom. not through mere coincidence, these are typically the same fucks yammering about “credibility” and other such generally illogical rot (given undisputed premises, credibility is wholly irrelevant in a logical argument). they’re the same type who right now are thinking, “he just said ‘fucks’”, as if it matters.

line it up, dumbasses. first, fundamental rights (those usually being discussed) cannot be “taken away”. any language to the contrary is simply brainwashed gibberish you’re re-spewing reflexively from an overdose of “good citizen 101″. do not, as jim fedako just did, refer to “additional loss of property rights”. it’s the language equivalent of spreading your legs and begging a rapist to take it easy on you. do not say, “our rights are being clipped one by one” or similar filth.

why? (more…)

for years lew’s been in the silly position of pissing on parasites while either ignoring that ron paul’s one or carving out a false explicit exception for the rat (our hero). today with this psycho blurb he chose the ignore path:

Leeches Stop Leeching

Well, not quite, but they did freeze their own pay. Article by Ron Paul.

an assertion common among LRC readers, as i’ve written:

Just a note to let you know that the Army in Europe (not sure if it is worldwide) is blocking access to your site. Yes, yes….not only do I work for the state, but DoD at that. It doesn’t keep me from being libertarian though! [...]

one cannot be libertarian and systematically, with forethought, rape others financially, mentally, and otherwise. note that LRC poster girl karen kwiatkowski made sure to hit goon “retirement” (more financial rape) while straddling 11 sept 2001 “in uniform working at the Pentagon“, after which she shifted (transitioned?) to brimstone pulpit pounding in fine style, railing against the borg through which she likely still gulps sustenance on the backs of her supposed neighbors, as does “libertarian” hero ron paul.

i fell for it long ago. no more. these opportunistic hypocrites should be shunned for exactly what they are.

he wanks today:

On April 13, the Rasmussen polling organization released the latest poll on political opinion. Voters were asked who they would vote for President. Result: President Obama, 42%; Ron Paul, 41%. No other Republican was in double-digits.

This was a bombshell. The Republican Establishment had previously dismissed his win at C-PAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) as manipulated. This was not a scientific poll, they said. But the Rasmussen poll was scientific. Ron Paul is neck-and-neck with Obama.

this is such obvious horse shit, it’s surprising even G-squared pirfles it. the related dreck from justin raimondo the other day was a pittance. (more…)

watch the falsely labeled “libertarians” fawn and be teased over whether their cult leader will deign to aim for a position no man has a right to hold.

Ron Paul 2012?

Posted by Thomas Woods on March 6, 2010 08:53 AM

Here I figured out a way to ask this question that he couldn’t answer with “it’s too early to say….” [...]

“oh, ron — er, Dr. Paul… cutesy me once again, my lover. deny the core principle i aver. use my wealth to that end. let me man-crush you into history. i will cheer. i will shout your name. show us salvation via the state, as only you can.

[whisper] “bless the coming and going of him.”

oh, that glorious wikipedia — quoted authoritatively by mushbrains over the world.

again i attempt to correct the stupid: if the wikipedia article you’re quoting as an authority is properly written, it will list its sources, and those sources (preferably stripped to their origin), at best, are what you should quote. original research is, with only extremely rare exception, prohibited by wikipedia policy.

me, writing the author of a post lew rockwell pointed to as a supposed refutation of helicopter bernanke:

"Even wikipedia".

absent referral to the direct source(s) that any properly written wikipedia article must have for any assertion (thereby bypassing wikipedia, except perhaps to say it's where you found your source), "wikipedia" is essentially a fancy way of saying "someone no one's ever heard of", while pretending it bears great weight.

then, in perspective, "Even [someone you've never heard of]" says blah blah? wow!

it marks you.