Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for the ‘Libertarianism’ Category

Work-from-home vs. libertarianism

The pandemic has shown us that the vast majority of white-collar workers are perfectly able to work from home.

A wide variety of groups ought to strongly support this. For conservatives, work-from-home means an end to the dominance of liberal “blue” cities like New York. For liberals, work-from-home means less carbon emissions from people commuting to the office. For people who actually can work-from home, it means no more time and money wasted in commuting, the freedom to live anywhere they want to.

Who is actually opposed to working from home? I guess big businesses which think that they make more money if they force everyone to go to an office, and libertarian types who say that we must let business decide what’s best. The same libertarian types predicted disaster for bars and restaurants if government banned cigarette smoking at those places. Well governments didn’t listen, smoking was banned, and bars and restaurants made even MORE money as a result because people no longer stayed away because they were repulsed by the disgusting cigarette smoke.

Just as with cigarette smoking, it’s time for government to step in and address this free-market failure, and ban companies from forcing white-collar workers to work in the office. For good, and not just until the threat of the virus is past us. The end result may even be more profit for business because they won’t have to rent expensive office space. The only real losers will be the people who own commercial real estate. And I say, screw them.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

May 6, 2020 at 11:10 AM

Posted in Libertarianism

Mike Bloomberg’s greatest accomplishment

Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post:

Bloomberg doesn’t get enough credit for this — as far as I can tell, he gets no credit whatsoever for this — but he is probably more responsible than any other human being on Earth for getting people off cigarettes and consequently saving untold numbers of lives. When Bloomberg banned smoking in bars and restaurants in 2003, everyone thought it would kill New York City social life. New York would stay home and drink boxed Chablis and eat Lean Cuisines! Every restaurant manager and barmaid in the city pleaded with him not to destroy their business.

Instead, they got to breathe fresh air. They got to take a shower the next morning without setting off the smoke detector. And everyone kept going out to eat and drink. Some smokers learned to go outside when they wanted a ciggie, grudgingly admitting that this was better for everyone than stinking up every pub, and it helped them reduce their consumption. Others simply gave up and quit, especially when Bloomberg drove up the price of a pack of Marlboros to approximately the level of a Toyota Celica.

Truly, it was the positive results of the ban on cigarette smoking that cured be of dogmatic libertarianism. The government stepped in with a regulation. Libertarians said only bad things could come of any government regulation. But the opposite happened. The government regulation worked, and everyone benefited from it. I personally benefited from it. Now, when I go out, I don’t come home with my clothes reeking of stale cigarette smoke.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 17, 2019 at 8:10 PM

Posted in Libertarianism

Pharaoh, value transference, and Mencius Moldbug

In 2010, I wrote the following blog post:

Pharaoh and value transference

Pharaoh was the Carlos Slim of ancient Egypt. All of the wealth of the entire nation belonged to Pharaoh. Other members of the value transference class included the priests and the warriors. These guys didn’t do any value-producing labor.

Of course it’s obvious to us that Pharaoh didn’t do anything to deserve to use massive amounts of slave labor to build himself a huge pyramid to be buried in. But if you asked someone in ancient Egypt, they would have justified the situation (especially if they were a member of the lesser value-transference classes such as the priesthood). “Pharaoh is a god, and without a god to watch over us, evil spirits would destroy everything! Without Pharaoh, we’d be doomed, so of course he’s entitled to such a large share of Egypt’s value. Without Pharaoh there’d be no value produced at all.” The modern-day libertarian economist will make a similar argument about how Bill Gates deserves to be a decabillionaire.

The lesson here is that, in every society that ever existed, there was a value transference class, and that class justified their existence with an argument that at least a plurality of the people believed, even though looking back we can see how they were obviously wrong.

The story in the book of Exodus is really about one of the very first revolutions against value transference. According to Exodus, Pharaoh enslaved the Hebrews and made them build his cities and monuments. But the Jews decided they had enough, and not only did they escape, they slew every firstborn Egyptian male and destroyed all of Pharaoh’s army in the process. This was proper and just punishment for value transference.

The blogger formerly known as Mencius Moldbug has turned my short blog post into a very long essay, minus the part about value transference. Moldbug is more interested in the narratives that keep our politicians in power rather than the narratives that keep our billionaires rich.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 30, 2019 at 8:43 AM

Posted in Libertarianism

Tucker Carlson must read the blog comments!

Last month I wrote in a comment:

The Koch brothers are nose-holders. Meaning they hold their noses dealing with the stinky conservatives because conservatives give them lower taxes.

Tucker Carlson expounds on this point. Without using my colorful “nose-holding” language. But still very much worth a read.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 20, 2019 at 11:26 AM

Posted in Libertarianism

Robocalls: Has Andrew Yang been reading my blog?

A while back, I wrote:

Why doesn’t Donald Trump do something about this?

Why can’t we create a system where it’s impossible to spoof caller ID?

Why can’t phone service providers figure out that a huge number of robocalls are coming from a certain entity and put a stop to it?

But Andrew Yang talks about the issue on his website:

It’s ridiculous that companies can call us all day every day pitching us unwelcome services, particularly when the calls are automated. Our time is the most valuable resource we have. Companies need to value our time the same way that we do. If you call me you’d better be human.

You may say, no way is he reading the blog, this is just an obvious problem. Andy politician with common sense would address it.

But if it’s so obvious, why has no other politician besides Andrew Yang ever mentioned the issue? Donald Trump has ignored the issue. He obviously doesn’t read my blog. Is Andrew Yang the only politician with common sense?

* * *

Andrew Yang actually hasn’t addressed the technological and legal issues. That the calls come from outside of the United States, they spoof caller IDs, and our telecommunications network, for whatever reason legal or technical, is unable to stop them. But at least he mentions it as a problem for government to solve.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 18, 2019 at 11:43 PM

Abortion at SOTU

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

As I’ve pointed out before, it’s bullshit that anti-abortion people believe that abortion should be left up to the states. That’s only something they say when they are talking about the Supreme Court. In fact, we see it’s exactly the opposite, anti-abortion people are outraged that one state chooses to have a more liberal abortion policy than most other states. They really don’t want to leave the issue up to the states.

Trump made a mistake putting this into his speech. Trump should try to de-escalate abortion as a political issue. As I’ve previously pointed out, the majority of adults in key swing states ae pro-choice. Also, abortion is beneficial for society Those who insist otherwise are falling for the just world fallacy. Someone has been giving him bad advice.

As I’ve written before:

Whenever I point out the benefits of abortion in reducing the birthrate of the poorest and thus most-crime-prone Americans, they go crazy and refuse to believe it. They insist on believing that every woman who has an abortion is like Juno, a young white girl from a middle-class or better family. Juno is a fictional movie! The reality is that the typical woman who has an abortion is a poor unmarried black or Hispanic woman who already has children. The last people you want to have more children. There is no better government money spent than the money spent on providing free abortions and free birth control for poor people. Every dollar spent on abortion and birth control for poor women saves at least ten dollars, if not a hundred dollars, on welfare, education, and law enforcement for the children those poor women would otherwise have had.

Pro-choice is pro-working-class white.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 6, 2019 at 9:49 AM

Visa and Mastercard ban David Horowitz Freedom Center

This is another step forward in big corporations with monopoly power censoring conservatives.

The irony here is that Front Page Magazine has been libertarian, and now the big corporations are paying back all of that editorializing against regulation of big corporations by shutting down their income. It’s time for the right wing to stop being cucks to big business.

I can’t help but point out that Horowitz is Jewish. Some anti-Semitic types think that Jews have protection from this type of stuff that gentiles don’t have, but obviously that is not the case.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 23, 2018 at 12:52 PM

Posted in Libertarianism

It’s time for big tech to be regulated

Public utilities (like electricity, telephone, etc.) are required to serve anyone who will pay them, and customers are entitled to due process before their services are turned off. Con Ed (the utility that serves New York City) can’t just turn off your electricity and gas because they don’t like your speech, and even for nonpayment they have to give you fair notice and due process rights.

When businesses were discriminating against blacks, a Democratic constituency, Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act requiring businesses to serve everyone regardless of race.

It’s time to regulate big tech the way utilities are regulated, and the way every business is regulated with respect to discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

A new law should require that big companies like Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, and Twitter are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of political viewpoint or any other type of speech (other than pornography because everyone hates pornography), and that if there is any denial of service for any reason, the user is entitled to fair notice and a hearing just like when the electric utility turns off someone’s electricity. And this includes fair access to searching and discovery. No more shadowbans and other nefarious algorithmic suppression of speech based on political orientation.

And sure, throw in “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” and throw in “sexual orientation” as well, to make the law look more fair and like something Democrats should support.

Republicans in Congress, stop being cucks to big business while they stomp all over conservatives.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 6, 2018 at 1:18 PM

Liberals no longer support free speech as much as they used to

This is something I’ve been writing about for quite some time. For example, in 2014, I write this:

The end of free speech?
In the United Kingdom, a right-wing politician was arrested for quoting Winston Churchill in a speech, charged with “religious or racial harassment.” Apparently Winston Churchill has some politically incorrect observations about Islam that today are considered to be “racist.”
In the United States, there is no doubt that a lot of people think we should have laws like the U.K. does. This Donald Sterling guy is now considered the most evil person in Los Angeles because he told his gold-digging mistress in a private and possibly illegally recorded conversation his feelings about her hanging around with black men. Even though he was set to receive a “lifetime achievement” award from the NAACP before the recording was released.

Despite being the most evil person in Los Angeles, there isn’t much anyone can do about it. Liberals may decide that it’s time to abolish the First Amendment. Sterling’s wife may also be a racist. I think there could be new McCarthy-type hearings in which Congress tries to root out “racist” people.

Yesterday, the New York Times finally observed something I have been noticing for a long time:

Many on the left have traded an absolutist commitment to free speech for one sensitive to the harms it can inflict.

Take pornography and street protests. Liberals were once largely united in fighting to protect sexually explicit materials from government censorship. Now many on the left see pornography as an assault on women’s rights.

In 1977, many liberals supported the right of the American Nazi Party to march among Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. Far fewer supported the free-speech rights of the white nationalists who marched last year in Charlottesville, Va.

However, it’s still biased fakestream media. The biased headline reads “How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment” instead of a more neutral headline such as “Liberals No Longer Support Free Speech as Much as They Used To.” And don’t say they are just quoting Justice Kagan, that’s how the fakestream media biases the news, they find a quote to support their narrative, and they can pretend innocence and say “we are just quoting an important person and not presenting our own opinion.”

Free speech is always a “weapon” for the side that has less power. Today, liberals have all the power, they control the fakestream media, the universities, and are securing their control over the big corporations. So free speech no longer benefits liberals, they want to use their power to suppress conservative speech (which they would call “hate speech”).

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 1, 2018 at 5:18 PM

Posted in Law, Libertarianism

Abortion will never be left up to the states

I see this over and over again in the comments, that a repeal of Roe v. Wade “only” means abortion will then be left up to the states.

This is totally deceptive. Abortion is too important for Congress to ever leave this up to the states. If Democrats control Congress (which they don’t) they would enforce mandatory access to abortion, and if Republicans control Congress (which they do), they would face some pretty strong pressure from the anti-abortion Right to make abortion illegal everywhere.

There is no way, in the long run, or even the medium run, that this issue would be left to the states to decide.

As I said in the comments, I’m not sure that the conservatives on the court want to repeal Roe v. Wade. But if they do, it would be bad for America if abortions become illegal; abortions are keeping the population of people with less desirable genetics in check. This is because women with high IQ and high future-time orientation rarely get accidentally pregnant in the first place. Rightists have this dumb idea that Juno is the typical person getting an abortion, and that’s a completely fake narrative. The most typical women who gets an abortion is an unmarried black woman who collects welfare and already has at least one kid.

I previously pointed out that poor black women have a twelve-times higher abortion rate than middle-class white women

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 28, 2018 at 7:10 AM

Posted in Libertarianism

%d bloggers like this: