Fuck the Libertarians Episode Three: Freedumb

This episode of Fuck The Libertarians is going to be a short one, but I feel like the argument needs to be addressed. It's just so exquisitely stupid. Let's get right to it.

Basically, the rational person will claim that free market capitalism is deeply flawed, in part because it allows corporations to employ workers in unsafe conditions that might be hazardous to their health. Further, it opens up the door for slave wages that no human being could ever hope to live on. Essentially, an unregulated capitalist system fucks over a lot of people, and that's not okay. We need strong regulations to protect the rights of workers, so that nobody, you know, fucking dies.

The fuckwit libertarians will then assert that there is no need to regulate how companies can treat workers, because the workers have the freedom to leave the position. If a business mistreats its employers, no one will apply for jobs there, and the business will go under. See? The system works!

Well, sure, the system works, but only if you're a childish asshole who is allergic to nuance. To further illustrate my objection with the argument, I want to look at a little thought experiment. Libertarians have concocted a fantasy world in their heads already, so it shouldn't be too hard for them to do this with me.

Let's imagine a small child in South America. He workers in a sweatshop for seventeen hours a day, making computer parts for a giant corporation which shall remain nameless. *Cough-Apple-Cough.* Conditions in his factory are hellish, and he only makes about sixteen cents a day. With that money, he can buy a single rotten apple. It isn't much, but it keeps him alive.

The alternative is to starve completely and eventually die.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Anybody will work a shitty job if they have no other way to survive. And yes, you have the theoretically option to leave, but if that will result in your death, then it isn't really a choice at all. You are effectively trapped in Hell if you work in an area with a low number of job openings.

Fuck that argument, and fuck the libertarians.

Fuck the Libertarians Episode Two: Biological Determinism

I know I said that episode two of this series wouldn't go up until next Monday, but I recently encountered a self-described libertarian who spewed fourth so much bullshit that I just had to write about it. Consider this a bonus episode of the series. I am so fucking generous, you guys!

Anyway, this stupid asshole was again pushing that dumb narrative that their are certain people, in this case whites, that are just better than others, in this case blacks, at occupying leadership roles. Therefore, it's totally fine that most of Congress and the Supreme Court is white, because that's the natural way of things! Changing the status quo is for faggots!

Now, I like to think of myself as at least somewhat intelligent, so naturally I disagree with this point. I believe that the reason most powerful people in America are white is because black people have not been afforded the same opportunities as their Caucasian counterparts. I mean, the Civil Rights act was only passed in 1965. That means that, even on paper, black people have only been equal for about fifty years. Contrast this with the hundreds and hundreds of years of white people being on top.

But even if you assert, as this fellow did, that racial inequality is a thing of the past, well, you're still wrong. I could go into why for hours on end, but luckily, someone already did that for me! I'll just leave this here. http://www.thecoli.com/threads/cracked-5-studies-that-prove-racism-is-still-way-worse-than-we-think.274657/ Give that article a look, then reconsider your position.

What really baffled me about that guy is that he does nothing to fix the problem he pointed out. Like, if there is a group of people that is just naturally dumber than another, which is what you believe, shouldn't we spend more time educating them and taking steps to mitigate that natural disability? By your logic, we should get rid of all wheelchair ramps, because people who cannot walk are just naturally worse than those who can. Obviously they don't deserve access to buildings.

Now, if there really is a natural disability inherent in being black, or female, or whatever, the way you fix that is to fund universal education. You would give impoverished an easy way out of their predicaments, and the idiots could improve their minds.

But that would require government intervention, which is tyranny, of course.

Fuck this guy, and fuck the libertarians.

Fuck the Libertarians Episode One: Taxation

Hey, all, this is the first in a new series, which will probably last for three episodes! The title says it all, really. Libertarians are fucking stupid, and I'm not going to sugarcoat it. If you really subscribe to the genuine free-market capitalist ideology, you're an idiot. It's jut that simple.

But as much as I'd love to just dump on libertarians in this angry, vague way, I think it behooves me to tackle some of the actual arguments. Here we go.

Firstly, taxation is not theft. This seems to be the cornerstone of the philosophy held by those antigovernment types. They claim that because the definition of 'govern' is 'to control by force,' that means that the process of collecting taxes is a violent one. They also state that because taxation is never truly voluntary at all times, so therefore it's theft.

The above argument seems to be predicated on not knowing what the word 'theft' means. Theft implies that someone takes something from you without offering something else in return. Theft is not mutually beneficial. But taxation helps to pay for things like roads and public schools. You could argue that these things are underfunded and that our tax dollars are misused, sure. But even then, the fact remains that you're still getting something back. Thus, it isn't theft.

That's basically all I have to say on that issue. Episodes of this series will go up every Monday until I have systematically eviscerated every Libertarian wingnut out there. See you next time.

Fuck The Libertarians Episode Five: The Slippery Slope of Religious Freedom

In the wake of many recent events, the American public has initiated a discussion about religious freedom, particularly as the concept relates to business owners and the conduct thereof. That's what I'd like to talk about today.

In Indiana, there was a bill proposed called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would make it legal for business owners  to refuse service to anyone if serving them violated their 'sincerely held religious beliefs." Proponents of the bill stated that the bill was a response to religious liberty. It was about affording theistic business owners the right to practice their faiths, even during business transactions.

I call bullshit. Let's not kid ourselves here, the RFRA and other bills like it are not about liberty or freedom. It isn't about making Christian business owners feel comfortable. It's a thinly-veiled attempt to push discrimination against the LGBT community, pure and simple. This is a form of modern segregation, and nothing more.

And yet, many people, including those on the left, are in favor of such bills being made into laws. They support the right of private business to choose how they conduct said business, even if it means enforcing discriminatory policy. To them, it isn't a matter of bigotry. It's about workers' rights, apparently.

These people go on to claim that it's okay for bakeries to not serve gay couples, so long as there is a separate bakery where the couple can go to be served. That way, both the bigot and the couple can remain comfortable, having never crossed paths with one another in the first place. That would be fine, except for one small problem. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. We have already had this discussion. We ruled that, under the fourteenth amendment, segregation is unconstitutional. There. This discussion is over.

Wait, no it isn't. So-called pro-freedom individuals will say that we have to empathize with Christian business owners. After all, if you believe that serving a gay couple will result in you burning in Hell for eternity, then isn't it wise to not serve that couple? Again, it's about the feelings of the business owners.

But that's a slippery slope. The irony of me invoking this argument is not lost on me, but I feel it makes sense in this context. If Christian bakers can refuse service to business owners based on their feelings about Hell, what's stopping Christian landlords from doing so? There are many states where it is completely legal to fire someone for being gay. This is again based on the feeling of the business owner. The point is, should laws like these become the norm, you will eventually see gay people being turned away from vital services, such as, again, housing. The RFRA sets a very dangerous precedent.

If the goal of the RFRA is to prevent the eternal torture of a significant subset of the population, then by all means, sign it into law immediately. I might disagree with your views, but I certainly don't condone torture. But here's the problem with that line of reasoning. Nobody fucking knows what happens after we die. Many of us like to pretend we do, but at the end of the day, we have no clue. At a certain point, we're going to have to be pragmatic and make decisions based on the here and now, instead of some hypothetical scenario that, in all likelihood, will probably never come to pass.

Just something to think about.

Fuck The Libertarians Episode Four: Frozen Peaches

Okay, you guys. We have to talk about freedom of speech. I've written about censorship twice before, both in the context of comedy and games. You can read those posts here and here, but I don't think the points I made there have really sunk in yet. So here is my rant about the broader concept of freedom of speech. Put another way, you dumb fuckers don't know what freedom of speech actually means, and so I'm going to beat the real answer into your skull right now. Buckle the fuck up, assholes.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. Nor does it mean that you have the right to an audience. I'll explain what those statements mean in a moment, after I tell you what the idea of freedom of speech is really about. Freedom of speech only applies to the government. Your freedom of speech only guarantees that the government cannot literally put you behind bars for saying something that the regime disagrees with. That is it. Freedom of speech says nothing about criticism leveled against you by private citizens. If someone has a legitimate criticism of your ideas, or they ask you not to say something, they are not infringing upon your freedom of speech. Like, if you call me a faggot, and I tell you to stop doing that, I am not censoring you. Only the government can censor you. That's what the word censorship fucking means.

And, as I said on twitter some time ago, "Freedom of speech means you can say whatever the fuck you want, it doesn't mean I have to listen." That goes back to the bit about right to an audience I talked about earlier. You can say anything you like, but you are not entitled to an audience. If you are sending somebody death threats, they can report you to the police. Like I said, that does not curtail your freedom of speech. If that person decides not to listen to you, if they block you or whatever, that's also okay. Freedom of speech only says you are guaranteed a platform to express your ideas. Nobody has to listen to those ideas. That's not part of the first amendment, all right? Good.

This is not just something to think about. This is not just my opinion, and it isn't up for debate. This is fact. I hope I made you realize that today.