Note: "Short Takes" are short essays I write up in a rage or fit of autism. They don't/shouldn’t impact the rate at which my longer content comes out. "Anti-Discrimination" is the belief you do not have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation/gender identity, even on your own property or in your own business. The remedy is lawsuits and the loss of property.
In law school (in the late '90s, I have some idea that this would not be taught today) - there is a particular case that ALWAYS causes problems - Shelley v. Kraemer. Everyone knows it is entirely wrongly decided: the finding of "state action" in the court's enforcement of racially restrictive covenants makes no sense in the larger context of what "state action" the Constitution limits. Robert Bork pointed out in a 1971 law review article the obvious problems with Shelley, as well as a bunch of other hot button civil rights cases. That article was used to call him a racist and crater his SCOTUS nomination. (Link to the offending scholarly piece - https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2720&context=ilj).
We had a professor who had worked in the Civil Rights Division of RFK's DoJ during the 60s. He pointed out that RFK as AG wanted to "end racism" but ran up against the problem Bork identifies - and you have as well - it smacks right up against the 1st Amendment and Free Association clause. The Supreme Court - largely infested with the "progressives" of any area - has been the architect of all of the mischief around race relations, from Dred Scott causing the Civil War to Plessy v. Ferguson enshrining "separate but equal" to Brown v. Board's attempts to un-ring the bell. All of it has been caused by the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure that's quite the takeaway I have from it. Is the "legitimacy" of courts any more "dubious" than the legitimacy of Congress when it passes idiotic or unjust laws?
Or the Presidency with garbage "executive orders" or unequal enforcement of laws?
Legitimacy of Law isn't a function of which branch of government is doing the law-giving; it is entirely contained within the decision itself and its justification.
Not sure I understand your point or that you understand mine, so let me clarify: when I say that justice is downstream from politics, I mean that judicial systems tend to reinterpret laws to absurd lengths according to the zeitgeist.
Politics, meaning in this case the general political persuasion of the ruling elite, dictates the new and supposedly correct interpretation of the law.
To answer your question, the courts are no more dubious. They’re all (imho) dubious and illegitimate in their own unique ways.
On your last point, I’m not saying that the courts are dubious by virtue of them making the decision within their particular capacity/office, but rather that they are dubious as they reinterpret the law in a clearly politically biased manner and in a way which is explicitly targeted at political opposition to the neoliberal/neoconservative/public-private partnership regime.
I was responding directly to your sentence that starts "it just goes" and ends with "dubious." Call it a slight disagreement with that statement.
I (mostly) agree with your statement beginning "they're all dubious and illegitimate in their own ways." They are, after all, institutions of Men staffed by Mortals.
OTOH, I think that there will always be some need for "law" and "lawgivers" in any human grouping and how one determines legitimate "law" from "illegitimate" law still remains a questions, whether it's from kids of an abusive father or members of a tribe from a bad chieftain or citizens from the edicts of an illegitimate policy, be it from a court, administrative law judge, or Congress.
I have thought something like this for a while. Making a law about something allows for litigation on that thing and discrimination laws are a slippery slope to take away people's freedom of action and eventually, thought. I think society eventually comes around to doing the right thing----it just takes a long time. A true Christian wants only good for his fellow man---which is ideal for society. But you cannot MAKE someone become a Christian. They have to come to it in their own mind. It seems like whenever we try take control of others, it does not work out. We need to remember this. It is so difficult to see someone being treated unfairly, but the answer isn't always to make a law.
Also, according to Thomas Sowell, more black families were intact and in or moving towards a good place before the 60's than after.
Sowell is very good on the effect of the Civil Rights Act on black families. But that doesn't fit the narrative. His videos online cover all this. Harlem then was safe because most families had fathers in the home. Then came welfare.
And I agree. These social mores emerge naturally. And they are enhanced by having the right to discriminate. If individuals or groups misbehave people need the right to withdraw support. But the bureaucracy needs to grow. Now only collapse will stop it.
The legit reason for such laws was that in some parts of the country, your business was subject to terrorist attack if you did not discriminate. Civil rights laws provided a CYA excuse.
That reason has since expired. A racial discriminator faces more boycotts and worse than an an integrator.
---
The proper political approach today is to focus on the penalties. Damages should not be so high as to invite offense -- for any tort whatsoever. Jurors should be instructed to make the victim whole, not to hand out a winning lottery ticket.
For example, the damages due to being refused a wedding cake should be bounded by the cost of finding another baker -- which is the same damages I deserve from shoe stores which don't provide wide shoes...
How many cities were burned by a segregationist whites in the 1960s?
How many by Black militants?
It wasn't the southern whites carrying out expansive campaigns of terrorism, it was communists. This is why cities well outside the south burned.
2000 bombs were detonated in the US in 1972 per Bryan Burroughs in "Age of Rage"... maybe 1-2% of these had anything to do with right wing segregationists... if that
In my childhood home town, the sun never set on a living n*****. The Klan watch was quite active and effective. The good side: door locking was optional. The bad side: the death penalty for curfew violation strikes me as excessive. End state terrorism does not require that much violence. The threat suffices. The same is true for communism or the income tax.
I have known older negroes who would never say no directly to a white man because that was Not Done. And I grew up with younger negroes with a chip on their shoulder as an over reaction to the old convention.
Fostering the chip on the shoulder thingy is double plus wrong. But completely forgetting the Bad Old Days is also a mistake.
Fun fact: Red America is also pretty darned Black America. At the moment pushing the Martin Luther King Dream is Right Wing Extremism. The upside of living in a mixed race community is that I can be slack on mowing my lawn and I can let the cats spend time outside without the local government getting on my case. And let's remember that it was the Black Panthers who revived gun rights in the U. S.
I am furious at the Woke because they are trying to stir up a race war while living in little Whitopias -- while I was cashing in on the Dream Thingy by experiencing freedom and low real estate prices in return for living in a mixed race neighborhood.
Which of the above are you calling delusional? Is it a delusion to notice that South Carolina and Alabama are considerably Redder than Oregon, Minnesota, or Washington?
Mate, you've got it all wrong. They are correcting for a flaw they themselves created, cannot admit and in so doing fuck the world up even further. The problem is that most humans are hardwired for fairness, not equality- so much so that even 50+% of African American men voted against imposed equity in California.
Check out the London Challenge. Here in the UK we used measures (very quietly) learned from Northern Irish Catholics to raise results for Black British kids to the point that there no longer is a racial academic gap. A kid at the Brampton Manor Academy starts their day at 6.00am. If they are one minute late they get 30 minutes detention. Parents are subject to the disciplinary code of conduct- not that any complain, given that their kids are kicking the arse of the kids on the entitled- they beat Eton on pure meritocracy.
Here's the killer. Where real discrimination exists it's proven to overwhelmingly found in customer facing roles. That means service sector, in cities, women, young, single and affluent. The biggest problem for Black America is not the White Male Conservative Racist we've been led to believe, but it's empirically proven to be the White Liberal Karen who is too awkward to say 'how would you like to learn the tricks to double your income through tips?'
Fucking get over it. Stop lying you Liberal cunts. The evidence proves the cynical racism of White female college grads just as surely as my taste buds savour the 10 year old Talisker I'm about to swig. But really, why is it that the Great Migration is reversing? Could it be because Black Families would prefer to deal with a genuine old White bigot honest to their face, rather than a sly White female liberal PMC who would rather avoid giving them a chance?
Well said. Furthermore, not being able to talk about the wretched problems in the black community for fear of being labeled racist keeps the blacks voting democrat. This entire welfare system was LBJs plan to garner the black vote. It worked brilliantly. But it’s enabled blacks. Does anyone believe black people are more poor because white people won’t hire them? Cause they don’t have opportunities? Jesus you’ve got tons more advantages from being black. Look at the crime stats. 12% of the population commits more than half of the murders in this country. Until we start addressing that nothing will get fixed.
“...telling someone of a different color to fuck off you don't want to pay their kind to work for you...” is fine as long as you accept the consequences of such statements such as having the shit kicked out of you for being an asshole. Incivility shouldn’t be a crime, but there used to be extralegal consequences.
Telling someone to get off your property you're not going to do something for them, is the essence of property and of not being a slave.
A slave can have service demaded of them whether they like it or not. A slave can have someone barge into their quarters or place of business and immediately be the one who's owed deference.
A free person has every right to expel anyone from their property for the most capricious reason they like, and if the person offers violence, a free person is a person who can respond with lethal violence to defend their property.
That doesn't fit the little utopia in their heads, and the pushers of it have so far largely escaped the consequences. Also, white Europeans have this 20-30% who will act against their own interests, almost uniquely. There are South African whites who are liberals and support the Rainbow Nation even now while it collapses. Europeans need to get better at detecting this element and expelling it.
Very good observations. I agree. The second group perfectly describes the upper middle classes cheering on mass immigration while living in their walled gardens, quick to denigrate the working class who object.
The whole point of the article was why should government have any say in who you hire, associate with, etc., but you want a law cited. I’m old school, you insult someone you don’t know, you take the chance they kick your ass.
I agree 100%. Reintroduce consequence to society. Shit will fix itself. It’s just that right now it’s not okay for whites to fight back but blacks get away with anything if they yell racism.
Sorry man, but I remember those days. And refusing to serve people because of their inherited appearance is just stupid and divisive. That's why we banned it back then. It was the right thing to do then, and still is.
But thanks for pointing out that MLK went to a communist school. It was his socialist economic stand that got him killed, not his civil rights campaign. Of course, I'm a communist(a real one, not some ID politics woke idiot) and I approve of what he managed to do.
And it’s also an essential right enshrined in the Freedom of Association. I’d look more at examples such as an HOA not allowing blacks to move into the neighborhood. If you’ve ever lived in a predominantly black city, you will understand why this decision would be made.
Physical safety and integrity of property is not a trivial matter. Enough cities stand testament to the importance of freedom of association. A few examples:
- Johannesburg
- Cape Town
- Detroit
- Paris
- London
Luckily, rental and home prices are still a de facto form of segregation winning many this freedom back. That being said, there’s no guarantee the government won’t come in and slap a section 28 housing complex down in your beautiful safe haven of a neighborhood and turn it into Flint, Michigan.
The argument is not in favor of racial discrimination. It is a warning about the state being used to further social goals best left to good manners and natural evolution.
The state had to trample all over property rights to make this happen. They have retained those property rights which they can now use in other ways to oppress people.
You either believe you can dispose of your property without interference or you can't.
As for civil rights. The USA has been in terminal decline since the 1960s. White america in particular is under strain. Those early civil rights issues you claim were good have now evolved into job quotas that exclude whites and East Asians. That isn't going to end well.
There is no place for government in changing social mores. You can't kill or harm others, but the sensitivity around discrimination is absurd.
If Southern Americans could have only stopped, or even minimized, their barbaric treatment of blacks, the rival Constitution and the annihilation of freedom of association could have been avoided. The government had to take action because the people could not help themselves. Now the cure is worse than the disease.
Judging individuals by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is a nice sentiment that I practice, but I don't appreciate being robbed of the opportunity to be magnanimous by the CRA nor its incompatibility with 1A.
Property rights, when completely boiled down, represent your right to your own life.
When you work to aquire property, it requires time, and that time requires part of your life. We're not immortal, so how we choose to spend our time is a sacred right. Time is life spent.
So, when someone wants to take claim to your property, they are taking claim to part of your life. Hence the slavery reference. Slaves don't determine how their time is spent and likewise don't own property.
It's the same reason why healthcare is NOT a right. Because healthcare requires someone's time. Someone has to decide to help someone else. People have to come to an agreement on what is acceptable for the time tradeoff.
Civil rights laws are designed to allow the state to control people's property on the basis that they have "committed a crime" because they offended someone.
Consider the case against the baker. He "discriminated against" a gay couple because he wouldn't spend his time baking a cake for them. They sue, on the grounds that discrimination laws require the baker -- to spend some of his life doing what someone else wants him to. That is absurd, and is not constitutional. There is no right to a cake.
If you don't control your property, you don't control your life.
Nobody has a right to a job, and nobody has a right to someone else's life. Period.
There is a perfect explanation of this process we’re in, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy the god that failed. The only problem of course is that it renders all cool content creators you could possibly like, from BAP to Slavoj Zizek, obsolete. Maybe..
Humbly, if offering information in an attempt to share awareness of a solution to the psychopaths in control, who plan to kill most of Us, is a problem with You, I will happily unsub. I have no need to painfully type responses to just be deleted.
In law school (in the late '90s, I have some idea that this would not be taught today) - there is a particular case that ALWAYS causes problems - Shelley v. Kraemer. Everyone knows it is entirely wrongly decided: the finding of "state action" in the court's enforcement of racially restrictive covenants makes no sense in the larger context of what "state action" the Constitution limits. Robert Bork pointed out in a 1971 law review article the obvious problems with Shelley, as well as a bunch of other hot button civil rights cases. That article was used to call him a racist and crater his SCOTUS nomination. (Link to the offending scholarly piece - https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2720&context=ilj).
We had a professor who had worked in the Civil Rights Division of RFK's DoJ during the 60s. He pointed out that RFK as AG wanted to "end racism" but ran up against the problem Bork identifies - and you have as well - it smacks right up against the 1st Amendment and Free Association clause. The Supreme Court - largely infested with the "progressives" of any area - has been the architect of all of the mischief around race relations, from Dred Scott causing the Civil War to Plessy v. Ferguson enshrining "separate but equal" to Brown v. Board's attempts to un-ring the bell. All of it has been caused by the Supreme Court.
It just goes to show you that the legitimacy of the courts is very dubious. It’s evidence that justice is downstream from politics.
Freedom of Speech is being “interpreted” in such a way as to be absurd. And Freedom of Association is essentially non-existent.
I'm not sure that's quite the takeaway I have from it. Is the "legitimacy" of courts any more "dubious" than the legitimacy of Congress when it passes idiotic or unjust laws?
Or the Presidency with garbage "executive orders" or unequal enforcement of laws?
Legitimacy of Law isn't a function of which branch of government is doing the law-giving; it is entirely contained within the decision itself and its justification.
Not sure I understand your point or that you understand mine, so let me clarify: when I say that justice is downstream from politics, I mean that judicial systems tend to reinterpret laws to absurd lengths according to the zeitgeist.
Politics, meaning in this case the general political persuasion of the ruling elite, dictates the new and supposedly correct interpretation of the law.
To answer your question, the courts are no more dubious. They’re all (imho) dubious and illegitimate in their own unique ways.
On your last point, I’m not saying that the courts are dubious by virtue of them making the decision within their particular capacity/office, but rather that they are dubious as they reinterpret the law in a clearly politically biased manner and in a way which is explicitly targeted at political opposition to the neoliberal/neoconservative/public-private partnership regime.
This is sheer corruption. On many levels.
I was responding directly to your sentence that starts "it just goes" and ends with "dubious." Call it a slight disagreement with that statement.
I (mostly) agree with your statement beginning "they're all dubious and illegitimate in their own ways." They are, after all, institutions of Men staffed by Mortals.
OTOH, I think that there will always be some need for "law" and "lawgivers" in any human grouping and how one determines legitimate "law" from "illegitimate" law still remains a questions, whether it's from kids of an abusive father or members of a tribe from a bad chieftain or citizens from the edicts of an illegitimate policy, be it from a court, administrative law judge, or Congress.
I have thought something like this for a while. Making a law about something allows for litigation on that thing and discrimination laws are a slippery slope to take away people's freedom of action and eventually, thought. I think society eventually comes around to doing the right thing----it just takes a long time. A true Christian wants only good for his fellow man---which is ideal for society. But you cannot MAKE someone become a Christian. They have to come to it in their own mind. It seems like whenever we try take control of others, it does not work out. We need to remember this. It is so difficult to see someone being treated unfairly, but the answer isn't always to make a law.
Also, according to Thomas Sowell, more black families were intact and in or moving towards a good place before the 60's than after.
Sowell is very good on the effect of the Civil Rights Act on black families. But that doesn't fit the narrative. His videos online cover all this. Harlem then was safe because most families had fathers in the home. Then came welfare.
And I agree. These social mores emerge naturally. And they are enhanced by having the right to discriminate. If individuals or groups misbehave people need the right to withdraw support. But the bureaucracy needs to grow. Now only collapse will stop it.
The legit reason for such laws was that in some parts of the country, your business was subject to terrorist attack if you did not discriminate. Civil rights laws provided a CYA excuse.
That reason has since expired. A racial discriminator faces more boycotts and worse than an an integrator.
---
The proper political approach today is to focus on the penalties. Damages should not be so high as to invite offense -- for any tort whatsoever. Jurors should be instructed to make the victim whole, not to hand out a winning lottery ticket.
For example, the damages due to being refused a wedding cake should be bounded by the cost of finding another baker -- which is the same damages I deserve from shoe stores which don't provide wide shoes...
How many cities were burned by a segregationist whites in the 1960s?
How many by Black militants?
It wasn't the southern whites carrying out expansive campaigns of terrorism, it was communists. This is why cities well outside the south burned.
2000 bombs were detonated in the US in 1972 per Bryan Burroughs in "Age of Rage"... maybe 1-2% of these had anything to do with right wing segregationists... if that
In my childhood home town, the sun never set on a living n*****. The Klan watch was quite active and effective. The good side: door locking was optional. The bad side: the death penalty for curfew violation strikes me as excessive. End state terrorism does not require that much violence. The threat suffices. The same is true for communism or the income tax.
I have known older negroes who would never say no directly to a white man because that was Not Done. And I grew up with younger negroes with a chip on their shoulder as an over reaction to the old convention.
Fostering the chip on the shoulder thingy is double plus wrong. But completely forgetting the Bad Old Days is also a mistake.
Fun fact: Red America is also pretty darned Black America. At the moment pushing the Martin Luther King Dream is Right Wing Extremism. The upside of living in a mixed race community is that I can be slack on mowing my lawn and I can let the cats spend time outside without the local government getting on my case. And let's remember that it was the Black Panthers who revived gun rights in the U. S.
I am furious at the Woke because they are trying to stir up a race war while living in little Whitopias -- while I was cashing in on the Dream Thingy by experiencing freedom and low real estate prices in return for living in a mixed race neighborhood.
Balance is in order.
Boomers have the quaintest delusions. I'll genuinely miss your generation's naivete when you're all gone...
Which of the above are you calling delusional? Is it a delusion to notice that South Carolina and Alabama are considerably Redder than Oregon, Minnesota, or Washington?
Correct
Mate, you've got it all wrong. They are correcting for a flaw they themselves created, cannot admit and in so doing fuck the world up even further. The problem is that most humans are hardwired for fairness, not equality- so much so that even 50+% of African American men voted against imposed equity in California.
Check out the London Challenge. Here in the UK we used measures (very quietly) learned from Northern Irish Catholics to raise results for Black British kids to the point that there no longer is a racial academic gap. A kid at the Brampton Manor Academy starts their day at 6.00am. If they are one minute late they get 30 minutes detention. Parents are subject to the disciplinary code of conduct- not that any complain, given that their kids are kicking the arse of the kids on the entitled- they beat Eton on pure meritocracy.
Here's the killer. Where real discrimination exists it's proven to overwhelmingly found in customer facing roles. That means service sector, in cities, women, young, single and affluent. The biggest problem for Black America is not the White Male Conservative Racist we've been led to believe, but it's empirically proven to be the White Liberal Karen who is too awkward to say 'how would you like to learn the tricks to double your income through tips?'
Fucking get over it. Stop lying you Liberal cunts. The evidence proves the cynical racism of White female college grads just as surely as my taste buds savour the 10 year old Talisker I'm about to swig. But really, why is it that the Great Migration is reversing? Could it be because Black Families would prefer to deal with a genuine old White bigot honest to their face, rather than a sly White female liberal PMC who would rather avoid giving them a chance?
Well said. Furthermore, not being able to talk about the wretched problems in the black community for fear of being labeled racist keeps the blacks voting democrat. This entire welfare system was LBJs plan to garner the black vote. It worked brilliantly. But it’s enabled blacks. Does anyone believe black people are more poor because white people won’t hire them? Cause they don’t have opportunities? Jesus you’ve got tons more advantages from being black. Look at the crime stats. 12% of the population commits more than half of the murders in this country. Until we start addressing that nothing will get fixed.
“...telling someone of a different color to fuck off you don't want to pay their kind to work for you...” is fine as long as you accept the consequences of such statements such as having the shit kicked out of you for being an asshole. Incivility shouldn’t be a crime, but there used to be extralegal consequences.
Telling someone to get off your property you're not going to do something for them, is the essence of property and of not being a slave.
A slave can have service demaded of them whether they like it or not. A slave can have someone barge into their quarters or place of business and immediately be the one who's owed deference.
A free person has every right to expel anyone from their property for the most capricious reason they like, and if the person offers violence, a free person is a person who can respond with lethal violence to defend their property.
Multiculturalism is a failure. Look at South Africa. Look at Zimbabwe. Look at Brazil. Look at the United States.
These countries all provide ample evidence as to why Freedom of Association must exist in its true form.
That doesn't fit the little utopia in their heads, and the pushers of it have so far largely escaped the consequences. Also, white Europeans have this 20-30% who will act against their own interests, almost uniquely. There are South African whites who are liberals and support the Rainbow Nation even now while it collapses. Europeans need to get better at detecting this element and expelling it.
There exist two disgusting and loathsome typologies of people who are sick in their own unique ways:
1) Cognitively maladapted people who engage in maladaptive and unnatural behaviours.
2) People who are practice adaptive behaviours themselves but promote degeneracy to others for virtue-signaling points.
It is our duty as normal people to shun and shut out these sick people as they only weaken and help destroy society.
Very good observations. I agree. The second group perfectly describes the upper middle classes cheering on mass immigration while living in their walled gardens, quick to denigrate the working class who object.
So please site the “I can kick the shit out of you cause you hurt my feelings” law.
The whole point of the article was why should government have any say in who you hire, associate with, etc., but you want a law cited. I’m old school, you insult someone you don’t know, you take the chance they kick your ass.
I agree 100%. Reintroduce consequence to society. Shit will fix itself. It’s just that right now it’s not okay for whites to fight back but blacks get away with anything if they yell racism.
Sorry man, but I remember those days. And refusing to serve people because of their inherited appearance is just stupid and divisive. That's why we banned it back then. It was the right thing to do then, and still is.
But thanks for pointing out that MLK went to a communist school. It was his socialist economic stand that got him killed, not his civil rights campaign. Of course, I'm a communist(a real one, not some ID politics woke idiot) and I approve of what he managed to do.
And it’s also an essential right enshrined in the Freedom of Association. I’d look more at examples such as an HOA not allowing blacks to move into the neighborhood. If you’ve ever lived in a predominantly black city, you will understand why this decision would be made.
Physical safety and integrity of property is not a trivial matter. Enough cities stand testament to the importance of freedom of association. A few examples:
- Johannesburg
- Cape Town
- Detroit
- Paris
- London
Luckily, rental and home prices are still a de facto form of segregation winning many this freedom back. That being said, there’s no guarantee the government won’t come in and slap a section 28 housing complex down in your beautiful safe haven of a neighborhood and turn it into Flint, Michigan.
The argument is not in favor of racial discrimination. It is a warning about the state being used to further social goals best left to good manners and natural evolution.
The state had to trample all over property rights to make this happen. They have retained those property rights which they can now use in other ways to oppress people.
You either believe you can dispose of your property without interference or you can't.
As for civil rights. The USA has been in terminal decline since the 1960s. White america in particular is under strain. Those early civil rights issues you claim were good have now evolved into job quotas that exclude whites and East Asians. That isn't going to end well.
There is no place for government in changing social mores. You can't kill or harm others, but the sensitivity around discrimination is absurd.
If Southern Americans could have only stopped, or even minimized, their barbaric treatment of blacks, the rival Constitution and the annihilation of freedom of association could have been avoided. The government had to take action because the people could not help themselves. Now the cure is worse than the disease.
And you told them to fuck off cos they were stealing your shit or being an arsehole.... not because they were black/white/gay or whatever.
Judging individuals by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is a nice sentiment that I practice, but I don't appreciate being robbed of the opportunity to be magnanimous by the CRA nor its incompatibility with 1A.
Property rights, when completely boiled down, represent your right to your own life.
When you work to aquire property, it requires time, and that time requires part of your life. We're not immortal, so how we choose to spend our time is a sacred right. Time is life spent.
So, when someone wants to take claim to your property, they are taking claim to part of your life. Hence the slavery reference. Slaves don't determine how their time is spent and likewise don't own property.
It's the same reason why healthcare is NOT a right. Because healthcare requires someone's time. Someone has to decide to help someone else. People have to come to an agreement on what is acceptable for the time tradeoff.
Civil rights laws are designed to allow the state to control people's property on the basis that they have "committed a crime" because they offended someone.
Consider the case against the baker. He "discriminated against" a gay couple because he wouldn't spend his time baking a cake for them. They sue, on the grounds that discrimination laws require the baker -- to spend some of his life doing what someone else wants him to. That is absurd, and is not constitutional. There is no right to a cake.
If you don't control your property, you don't control your life.
Nobody has a right to a job, and nobody has a right to someone else's life. Period.
There is a perfect explanation of this process we’re in, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy the god that failed. The only problem of course is that it renders all cool content creators you could possibly like, from BAP to Slavoj Zizek, obsolete. Maybe..
Good is not only bad. It’s profoundly evil!
Keep it up Kulak
This is why I aim for abundancism.
Abundancism (10 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/abundancism:8?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
Own What You Use! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/own-what-you-use
Do not spam your Articles and substack without any meaningful comment.
I've removed your other one. This is one of the things I ban for.
Humbly, if offering information in an attempt to share awareness of a solution to the psychopaths in control, who plan to kill most of Us, is a problem with You, I will happily unsub. I have no need to painfully type responses to just be deleted.
Love always.