~ For nearly 25 years now I’ve loosely used human slavery as a reference or analogy to what exists now in terms of statism, because I would prefer that people get a brain and dump all allegiance to all states worldwide. But it’s imperfect, and I always use it tongue in cheek because I hate diluting the meaning of true slavery.
Even the name of my blog, Free The Animal, contemplates this in a way. The distinction is that these are cages of human, voluntary design and it doesn’t require much overt force when human beings will willingly walk in, close and lock the door, and toss the key out of reach.
They don’t know anything different and reminiscent of Stockholm Syndrome, they’ll keep their cages nice & tidy, and will jeer and laf at all who point out that they’re not only living in a cage, but are keeping it clean and tidy for their zoo masters and love compliments: Why We Couldn’t Abolish Slavery Then and Can’t Abolish Government Now.
Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions that ranged from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and violent assault.
When people bothered to give reasons for opposing the proposed abolition, they advanced many different ideas. In the first column of the accompanying table, I list ten such ideas that I have encountered in my reading. At one time, countless people found one or more of these reasons an adequate ground on which to oppose the abolition of slavery.
In retrospect, however, these reasons seem shabby—more rationalizations than reasons. They now appear to nearly everyone to be, if not utterly specious, then shaky or, at best, unpersuasive, notwithstanding an occasional grain of truth. No one now dredges up these ideas or their corollaries to support a proposal for reestablishing slavery. Although vestiges of slavery exist in northern Africa and a few other places, the idea that slavery is a defensible social institution is defunct. Reasons that once, not so long ago, seemed to provide compelling grounds for opposing the abolition of slavery now pack no intellectual punch.
…Except when precisely the exact same arguments are always used by 100% of people all the time to mock people like me who’ve been calling for the abolition of state “slavery” for 25 years, now.
Strange to say, however, the same ideas once trotted out to justify opposition to the abolition of slavery are now routinely trotted out to justify opposition to the abolition of government (as we know it). Libertarian anarchists bold enough to have publicly advanced their proposal for abolishing the state will have encountered many, if not all, of the arguments used for centuries to prop up slavery. Thus, we may make a parallel list, as shown in the table’s second column. […]
Libertarian anarchists do not deny that such social functions must be carried out if a society is to function successfully. They do deny, however, that we must have government (as we know it) to carry them out. Libertarian anarchists prefer that these functions be carried out by private providers with whom the beneficiaries have agreed to deal. When I write about government “as we know it,” I am referring to the monopolistic, individually nonconsensual form of government that now exists virtually everywhere on earth. […]
The similarity of arguments against the abolition of slavery and arguments against the abolition of government (as we know it) should shake the faith of all Americans who still labor under the misconception that ours is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” From where I stand, it looks distressingly like an institutional complex that rests on the same shaky intellectual foundations as slavery.
- Slavery is natural. Government is natural.
- Slavery has always existed. Government has always existed.
- Every society on earth has slavery. Every society on earth has government.
- The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. The people are not capable of taking care of themselves
- Without masters, the slaves will die off. Without government, the people will die off.
- Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves. Where the common people have no government, they are much worse off (e.g., Somalia).
- Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils. Getting rid of government would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.
- Without slavery, the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem. Without government, the people would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.
- Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Trying to get rid of government is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.
- Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. Forget anarchy. A far better plan is to keep the ordinary people sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.
~ Object lesson in the sort-sighted, demagogic ignorance of both Democrat and Republican politicians and their swarms & hills of “gimme free stuff” bee & ant constituencies, never better illustrated than in the hand wringing of paying too much for their medicine chests.
“And far from a charity case, Baum told Business Insider he expected to make ‘tremendous profit’ with the new pricing.”
~ This is so delicious it makes me giddy. Fucks given? Zero.
Hundreds of thousands people will lose their insurance plans as a raft of health insurance cooperatives (CO-OPs) created by the Affordable Care Act will cease operations.
Just last week, CO-OPs in Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee and Kentucky announced that they would be winding down operations due to lower than expected enrollment and solvency concerns (although the one in Colorado is suing the state over the shutdown order). They join four other CO-OPs that have announced that they would be closing their doors.
In total, only 15 out of the 23 CO-OPs created by the law remain. These closures reveal how ill-advised this aspect of the ACA was both in terms of lost money and the turmoil for the people who enrolled in them. The eight that have failed have received almost $1 billion in loans, and overall CO-OPs received loans totaling $2.4 billion that might never get paid back.
In addition, roughly 400,000 people will lose their plans.
And if they don’t pop for the 50-100% rate hikes I’ve seen, they’ll ironically be fined for what’s largely and inability to pay.
Let me help some of you get your fucking heads out of your asses.
The Obama administration encouraged a bunch of Co-Op startups, propped up with your money from a different pocket (to the tune of a $2 billion.&half), so they could induce a lot of people to sign up for “affordable” low premiums, which were actually below cost, and figured that when they collapsed, people would just shrug off 50%+ increases in premiums?
Yea, pretty much. Democrats, generally, never saw a voter they didn’t hope was pretty stupid.
….But, you must wait for the rest of the story.
That’s when Democrats charge that insurance commissions in Republican controlled states are “going after” Co-Ops; because, of course, ensuring solvency in a business is so Republican and politically motivated.
~ Loran Cordain is a cult leader, using graduate minions to prop up his The Paleo Diet™ Church.
I was going to devote a blog to this, but cults are so 70s, and look how dismissible the vegan cult is?
How many of the six sociological characteristics of cults apply to Cordain, et al?
- Authoritarian Leadership
- Opposition to Independent Thinking
- Fear of Being “Disfellowshiped”
- Threats of Satanic Attack
Hell, you have almost all of them in a single post from a couple of weeks ago: CHARISMATIC PALEO BLOGGERS: RIGOROUS CAUTION REQUIRED.
Some of the most well recognized names in the “Paleosphere” surprisingly maintain few professional, academic, or even experiential credentials which would qualify them as scientists, researchers or even lay experts in the discipline. These self proclaimed, charismatic authorities have influenced and continue to influence hundreds of thousands of people based upon nothing more than their untested subjective opinions and limited understanding of the scientific, peer review literature.
Most have never been trained in the research process, few maintain anything more than a bare bones understanding of the scientific method and don’t have even the slightest inkling of the statistical or research design issues that can make or break the validity and generalizability of any scientific study. Universally, none of these influential Paleo bloggers have an extensive publication record in the scientific peer review literature relating to Paleo diets or anything else.
Accordingly, their blogs have no origins in their own prior refereed scientific writings (because they don’t have any). Unfortunately, these bloggers can utter just about anything they desire about contemporary Paleo diets because virtually no objective system of checks and balances underlie their writings and opinions.
Here’s all you need to know: “These self proclaimed, charismatic authorities have influenced and continue to influence hundreds of thousands of people.”
That’s right, fuck face. Kiss my butt, you pathetic piece of soiled ass-wipe. You’re a fucking pussy, Cordain. You never come out of your Ivory Tower Cloister. I have dozens of Pub-Med referenced challenges to you on this very blog, and I’m not some vegan fucktard, and you and your sycophants know it. How about your embarrassing diatribe on honey? How about iron fortification and whole grains?
You completely hide, along with that idiot butt-kisser Thaler you’ve got, about the real research on honey…preferring to have the lie out there (why do you fucking lie so much, Cordain?) that’s it’s essentially HFCS. Fucking charlatan for money are you.
Then, you go and do a five-part (FIVE PARTS!) wheat series using your other ass-kisser, Connor, and where in those five parts do you address a single thing about the fact that the French eat 40% more wheat than we do (refined even) and don’t seem to have our problems (you are falsified right off the bat, making you and Connor fucking frauds and liars)? Where did you make a single distinction between refined and iron-enriched grains, where the nutrient dense germ (and bran) have been stripped for benefit of industrial shelf storage, putting them in serious mineral imbalance, copper and manganese being essential to proper iron utilization, just as it is for the plants themselves?
Oh, and then, as if to double down and make sure your sycophant cult followers are on board, you take away even more perfectly edible stuff: STOP SETTLING FOR PSEUDO HEALTH AND SAY NO TO PSEUDOGRAINS.
It’s getting more like a vegan cult every day.
It’s not much of a secret that I could never stomach you, ass wipe—confirmed solidly when I met you in the hotel bar at AHS11. What a fucking condescending, elitist prick you were. You had zero recognition of why you were even there, seemed flabbergasted and gobsmacked play-dumb, that your stupid book from 2,000 was all of a sudden selling—and then had the temerity to suggest that someone (meaning, people other than you) go buy a case of wine for Aaron Blaisdell’s presenter party we were all headed to.
Well, I see no reason to change current theme song, for the time-being.