If everybody in the world really understood this simple lesson, and what it really means, the entire world and political landscape would be vastly different place.

An excellent 4-parter from the prolific Mr. Molyneux. For those with a short attention span, video 3 is a quick wakeup call. I’m personally a big fan of the latter half of video 2. But if you have the time make sure to listen to the whole set as they are well worth listening to; especially if you’re currently looking for a job and finding things tough.

After some heavy discussion about the merits of gun ownership I think some lighten content is in order. With that in mind, I recently recalled these Viz strips that particularly tickled me; I feel they deserve a wider audience:

[click for full size]

Further to my previous post, somebody gave me this link and I think it’s worth sharing here:

Remember. In this country there really isn’t any legal way to forcibly defend yourself against vicious cunts. You try using Kung-fu against somebody brandishing a Machete or a shot-gun.

In the UK it is almost sacrilege to suggest that the 1997 Hand-Gun ban was anything less than a triumphant step towards a utopian peace. Over here comedians, pundits, papers and television routinely mock the USA for it’s gun culture; we are more enlightened, more “progressive” is the underlying sentiment.

But as anybody with any common sense could easily have concluded long in advance, prohibiting guns does not get rid of them, it only drives them underground. As the cliche goes: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

On the 2nd of June Derrick Bird embarked on a killing spree that left 12 people dead in his wake. This is comparable to the 17 who died in the tragic Dunblane massacre which was the pretext for the hand-gun ban in the first place. Derrick Bird was not deterred from carrying a gun because Derrick Bird was batshit fucking insane. His victims, and the bystanders who saw what happened (fearing lengthy jail terms if caught with a weapon), were unarmed and unable to stop this madman.

In fact since the ban there has been absolutely no reduction in the number of homicides from firearms.

Now let’s forget the facts that the ban has not reduced murders, and let’s forget the obvious truth that you simply cannot legislate guns out of the hands of criminals and let’s talk about what really matters: the individual.

The government makes it impossible for individuals to protect their homes, and their families!

This might sound like hyperbole but that’s probably because you’ve never been targeted by a criminal.

If you are an average sized Male, living on your own, you cannot protect yourself against determined criminals.

Criminals are typically hard bastards, they’re used to fighting, they’re used to carrying weapons and using them, they’re often big and what’s more they’ll kick down your door and steal everything you have if they think they can get away with it. Here’s the crux: what are you going to do to stop them?

Phone the police? All the police can do is arrive after the scene of the robbery. Sure they can take a few details, but the vast majority of crimes are never solved. Maybe they’ll take a fingerprint or two, but if you’ve ever dealt with the boys in blue you’ll know that the chances of anything coming from that are about as remote as Mel Gibson teaching anger management classes.

When the individual property owner (a property owner is somebody who has agreed to live amongst society. He is playing the long game. Working. Producing. Accumulating wealth and becoming known in his community. He is the opposite of the criminal) cannot defend himself against the thug who wants to take by force what he has not earned through toil you have a recipe for a decaying civilisation.

It’s no coincidence that the worst places to live are the inner city ghettos, where the criminals are most likely to carry, and the victims are least able to invest in any kind of decent home security.

It’s also no coincidence that it is always the government who seeks to disarm the law-abiding and productive in favour of the psychopaths; the violent criminals…

They are the same people.

Where the criminal plays the short game, using violence to take what he wants in the moment, the government plays the long game; taking the fruits of your labour pay-cheque to pay-cheque, under the threat of its own guns, which it always finds a way to justify it needs.

Because remember citizen: ethics are not universal; there is one rule for us and another for them.

Why?

BECAUSE WE HAVE THE GUNS, THAT’S WHY!

This is an important point, and this article addresses it perfectly:

You can’t fight violence with violence [New Scientist]

Battersea, London:

“Maximum 4 dogs allowed”

…

N.B. I am not Davy

In this video, Paul McKeever discusses the difference between qualitative and quantitative economic arguments. He eloquently explains why utilitarian economic arguments are inherently flawed, and why we should focus on the moral nature of government spending instead.

Curiosity getting the better of me however, if anyone knows how the Rahn curve is derived please let me know, either in the comments or on the forums. I’m sceptical of its veracity, even as a tool for central planning utilitarians to optimise society. I’d like to know the empirical data or reasoning behind the peak of the curve being at the 15-25% spending level.

As an anarcho-capitalist I would think (or at least hope) that the peak of the curve would be at 0% on the X-axis, although I do recognise that perhaps only in a stage of enlightened anarchy would this necessarily be the case. For example, it is logically obvious that a society highly dependant on government (because it holds violent monopolies over vital services and infrastructure, no less) will not suddenly achieve maximum productivity the day after their government collapses. The same is true if the government is forced to cut taxes and spending massively to levels below the supposed peak. On the contrary, it would take a lot of time for the society to become prosperous, perhaps even a few generations or more. Could it be that the Rahn curve doesn’t account for this?

— Jack Whitehead

Jacob Spinney nails it:

My favourite scene from Good Will Hunting and pertinent to the principles of liberty in its condemnation of killing people abroad who have done no harm to you personally. Taken to it’s logical conclusion this belief should lead anybody who holds it to a pure libertarian position; though most won’t, of course.