Wicked Witch of the West

Jimmy Eat World

PR's Tumblrdome
macklin celebrini has autism
Game of Thrones Daily
Mike Driver
d e v o n
cherry valley forever

Kiana Khansmith
tumblr dot com
Cosimo Galluzzi
untitled
KIROKAZE
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!

gracie abrams

titsay
Fieri Frames
Fai_Ryy

No title available

Love Begins
Today's Document
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Venezuela

seen from El Salvador

seen from Poland
seen from Colombia
seen from Australia

seen from United States
seen from Spain

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Bangladesh

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Ecuador
seen from Mexico

seen from Mexico
seen from United Kingdom
@yalucsd-blog
Wicked Witch of the West
http://www.explosm.net/comics/3059/
Being anti- for the sake of being anti- is bad.
Currently, yes, I am against these things - but I’d rather change the system from within, not just immediately dismiss it.
I understand that.
But what if you believed that the system cannot be changed? And even if you could change it, you’d have to weigh out whether or not you’d rather continue to torment yourself and potentially perpetuate a system cannot be fixed and that is insistent on hurting you and your family, or eradicate the system and start from scratch. Either way, it’s gonna hurt. The question is, which way is the fastest way to prosperity? I think we need both perspectives in the equation. They’re equally important.
If you’re of the belief that the system can be fixed within, then I support your optimism, but I can’t help but recognize your naivety. If you believe that it must be destroyed and rebuilt, I still support you but I can’t help but recognize how immature and unlikely that is. Yet, I find myself fighting within the system. Ignorance is bliss, they say.
Side note: I think the government needs to see what it feels like to be threatened with eradication and oppression. Personally, I think we should vote on who in government goes to prison. Fuck’em
But I do agree that being anti- for the sake of being anti- is bad.
^^^^^^^^^
Being anti- for the sake of being anti- is bad.
Currently, yes, I am against these things - but I'd rather change the system from within, not just immediately dismiss it.
What is libertarianism?
So, enough time has passed in our YAL chapter to begin looking at our track record. What did we do right? What did we do wrong? What kind of people joined this year? Who will lead next year? Inevitably, the question came to bear - how did the greater student body perceive us this year, and how do we want them to perceive us next year? When people consider joining our YAL chapter, what kind of people do they expect us to be beyond "libertarians"? I thought about this question for a long time, and realized that it delves much deeper than our local rag-tag group of college libertarians. It hit me when I was tabling in a busy area of campus and was eavesdropping on the booth next to ours - "Circle K", a volunteering group. I realized that none of those people would ever want to join YAL. I have a theory that some people would rather just enjoy whatever falls in their lap as it comes, rather than thinking about where it's coming from or if it could be better, or conduct any further analyzation. It's the same reason why so many people consider themselves democrat or republican - they see the options presented and choose the one with the most surface information (although, really, it chooses them, as I'll explain later.) Circle K is a well-established organization that sets up shop all over the United States to organize students into raising money for various causes - when you sign up for Circle K, you know exactly what you're getting into. The club is run by a central administration who does your thinking for you, and all you need to do is let them manipulate your body. YAL, on the other hand, is fairly ambiguous. Our events are largely do-it-yourself, our central administration is fairly hands-off, and most of our ideas are theoretical (unless you can show me a state that has successfully privatized roads) and can be difficult to articulate well. Conservatives and liberals are easily explained with topical, currently functioning examples, but I always struggle to explain what a libertarian is in ten words or less. Like, it's easier to convince someone to adopt a cat or dog than a chicken.
Speaking from my psychology background, I'd have to say that the difficulty in accurately explaining libertarianism to a complete stranger could stem from parenting. Usually, folks select their political preference with regards to their moral and social code, which is often dictated by their upbringing. Conservative parents will typically reward conservative behavior (and vice versa with liberal parents) so when explaining conservatism to a liberal, they can classify it as "the opposite of how you were raised." But there's little to no common ground here with libertarianism, or, at least, that's been my experience when talking to non-libertarian college students. Because libertarian parents are basically non-existent in this generation, libertarianism never has the home advantage - it's always playing in another moral field, and convincing a non-libertarian to make that mental leap to root for our team requires a lot of three-dimensional thinking on their part, almost to the point of philosophically defying their own upbringing. This is why I think that our YAL chapter is mostly made up of people who think in a very specific fashion, and you could even say that a certain type of people are "susceptible" to libertarianism. I can only conjecture as to what defines libertarian susceptibility - perhaps a penchant for skepticism, or a strict upbringing with little to no punishment behind household rules leads to questioning morality, ethics and boundaries or perhaps something else entirely. It's weird to think about, but I think that libertarian susceptibility is a major road block not only to YAL chapter recruitment, but to the liberty movement in general. If you need to process things a certain way to understand libertarianism, this movement might be doomed. But I also think that these roadblocks may begin to dissipate over time, again because of the growing amount of libertarian parents. So to answer my original question - "how is our YAL chapter perceived by the greater community, and can we change that perception?" I think we're perceived as morally slanted, so joining requires sacrificing some of one's own morals which may be enlightening in the end, but is very difficult to convince someone to do in the meantime.
After thinking all this through during long showers and bike rides, I concluded that we should try and seem more morally "normal" - whatever that may be. That, and perhaps more pizza at meetings.
“I am the most pure libertarian. I am the most pure individualist of them all!!!” I shout at the top of my lungs as my cells simultaneously disassemble from their coercive collective and I dissipate into the air.
Two Greenwald Twitter screencaps in one night? Completely justified.
50 years of the Playboy Interview: Milton Friedman
“And hey, if it so happens that 1000 people were killed, well the market should take care of that too. And the people shouldn’t get involved until disaster has already hit.” amirite?
Right, because businesses are more afraid of the FDA than getting sued.
Right, because the FDA has no impact whatsoever on food distribution on society. Permits, certifications, inspections, and forced compliance of quality standards doesn’t cost the food distribution industry a single cent. Nope, they’re more worried about a lawsuit that rarely happens precisely because of all the non-existent rules.
> rarely happens
L-O-L lern 2 google plox
It’s one thing to Google, it’s another thing to read: Something you didn’t do, apparently.
Let’s go through your cherry picked, short list of sources and we’ll draw a conclusion from there and finally put this to rest.
Your first example was Burger King. However, only 5 lawsuits were mentioned on that Wikipedia page of theirs. This is dating back to 1954. So that’s not a bad record. In fact, only 2 lawsuits having to do directly with food safety were mentioned on that page. But even if they were negligent more often, it still wouldn’t support your conclusions.
Your second example was McDonalds being sued for using beef flavoring in their French Fries and vegetarians are suing because they assumed it was animal free simply because of the words “Natural Flavors”. This is a frivolous lawsuit and I completely stand with McDonalds on the issue, however I think companies should be more forthcoming on the full list of ingredients of their products. But it’s still in litigation, so let’s not prematurely decide its outcome.
Your final link was a McDonalds legal cases wiki page. But this is where you clearly didn’t read. Out of the 16 lawsuits that were mentioned on that page, only one of them mentioned food and it was that woman that Sued McDonalds for her spilling hot coffee on herself. She’s the poster child for frivolous lawsuits.
Furthermore, almost every lawsuit mentioned on that page is talking about copyright and trademark issues - not food handling issues. Wow, I’ll bet that’s embarrassing to you, huh?
So again, instead of just using Google, try reading after you Google search, because it kinda makes you look like an ass when your own sources don’t support your conclusions:
Which by the way, even if the sources you provided were consistently negligent and harmed people all the time and served food with extra fecal matter, it still wouldn’t support your belief that this type of thing happens often. It does not represent the food distribution industry in the United States. A large part of this is precisely because of regulation, but also because of consistent standards and practices exercised by the companies.
You would still have all your work in front of you to convince most rational people that throwing our food safety regulations to the wayside is somehow going to be more conducive to a safer, healthier society.
Check & Mate
(from the California Review)
50 years of the Playboy Interview: Milton Friedman
“And hey, if it so happens that 1000 people were killed, well the market should take care of that too. And the people shouldn’t get involved until disaster has already hit.” amirite?
Right, because businesses are more afraid of the FDA than getting sued.
Right, because the FDA has no impact whatsoever on food distribution on society. Permits, certifications, inspections, and forced compliance of quality standards doesn’t cost the food distribution industry a single cent. Nope, they’re more worried about a lawsuit that rarely happens precisely because of all the non-existent rules.
> rarely happens
L-O-L lern 2 google plox
50 years of the Playboy Interview: Milton Friedman
“And hey, if it so happens that 1000 people were killed, well the market should take care of that too. And the people shouldn’t get involved until disaster has already hit.” amirite?
Right, because businesses are more afraid of the FDA than getting sued.
The entire Free To Choose series video.
50 years of the Playboy Interview: Milton Friedman
I had forgotten all about the "Life of Julia" until our YAL meeting when it came up in conversation. For those who don't know, "Life of Julia" was a slide show that the Obama campaign released online around September 2012 that walked us through the life of "Julia", a fictional, female citizen of the United States who would be taken care of by government programs from birth to death. When I originally saw this, I dismissed it as election rhetoric with Obama further refining his positions against Mitt Romney - I really didn't really read into it all that much.
But taking a look back, I realize it's far more disturbing than I originally thought. It's a pitch for a government-dependent life from cradle to grave, and I've gone back and done some research and it looks like it's been (rightfully) criticized from both sides (see the linked CNN article) as being way too far-reaching and it appears to have been removed from the internet. But lately I've been scrambling to come up with a unified liberal ideology that's representative of the modern democratic party. As someone who joined libertarianism from the left, I'm always inclined to find common ground with liberals, but it's been getting harder and harder and I think "Life of Julia" is a key reason why. Liberals are beginning to believe that government programs shouldn't just be available - they should be mandatory, and this is where I fundamentally differ from liberal politics. Public schools are a good example, since even as a libertarian, I've always been a huge proponent of public schools. Yes, yes, I hear your jeers already, but hear me out here.
First of all, I'm a "Ron Swanson" libertarian - I think being a libertarian begins at age 18, so I tend to support government programs that act on behalf of children. When set up correctly, I think public schools can be (philosophically) libertarian and I think a public education is what you make of it - I went to a large, public, suburban high school with a wide variety of teachers and courses, and they provided me with a lot of options to customize my education - there was always a challenge available, or remedial classes, or clubs that be about anything, or you could take more or fewer classes or enroll in college courses. But despite all these options, dropping out was not one of them, and this is where my libertarian sensibilities begin to ache. What the "Life of Julia" doesn't show is what happens when Julia doesn't necessarily want to go to high school or college or would like to fund her own healthcare. What happens if, at any time, she'd like to deviate from the government-mandated track, even making a less extreme decision than dropping out of high school? Well, if she was a minor she'd be hit with truancy laws. If not, she'd still have to pay for the adult programs via taxes, which means that liberals don't truly see dropping out as a viable option. And I think a liberal might explain that those options aren't available because it's best for society if she didn't deviate from that track, and therein lies the cravasse between liberals and libertarians - a crevasse I, myself, jumped a number of years ago. I think the government shouldn't cast this mold of "Julia" and require every citizen to squeeze into it. I think the best society is one in which each citizen decides how they best contribute using their own skill set, not how they can best contribute within the confines of a mold defined by government dependence. "Life of Julia" is a perfect visualization of the dangerous direction the democratic party has started deviating towards - there's this subtle mantra of "if you're not with us, you're against us," or, in other words, you can choose to be against us, but you're going to support us (through taxes) no matter what. This isn't right - liberalism should be about offering options, not mandates. Libertarianism takes it another step back and says "make your own damn options" which is, ideally, even better, but that's a discussion for another time. It's disappointing that liberals tend not to analyze their own ideology like libertarians do. If more liberals took a good look in the mirror, they might not recognize what they see anymore.
Some reading I got at ISFLC #libertarian #republican #capitalism #welfarestate #bastiat #excited