Thursday, August 11, 2011

A Man Takes a Stand

We should all stand up and applaud Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter for telling it like it is to the wayward youth of his city

Here's his message:
“Take those God-darn hoodies down, especially in the summer,” Mr. Nutter, the city’s second black mayor, said in an angry lecture aimed at black teens. “Pull your pants up and buy a belt ‘cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”

“If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ‘cause you look like you’re crazy,” the mayor said. “You have damaged your own race.”
He also delivered a message to parents:
“The Immaculate Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place a long time ago, and it didn’t happen here in Philadelphia,” Mr. Nutter said. “So every one of these kids has two parents who were around and participating at the time. They need to be around now.”

The mayor told parents, “If you’re just hanging out out there, maybe you’re sending them a check or bringing some cash by. That’s not being a father. You’re just a human ATM. … And if you’re not providing the guidance and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor.” ( Washington Times)
Finally, he told violent gangs in no uncertain terms that the city is coming after them. They better listen up. This is the city where Mayor Frank Rizzo firebombed a block of row houses going after leftwing radicals.

This is a black man delivering a message to the black young men of his city, but the message transcends race, gender and life’s station. We all need to pull our damned pants up, and pull out heads out. 

Law and Liberty Crucified

A few who post here have mentioned that regardless of how we talk about liberty, there still must be an authority wielding the threat of punishment.  Our governments are supposed to do that, but they are corrupted and incompetent.

The ruling elite won't go after Wall Street looters because they need their money, and they won't go after main street moochers because they need their votes.  They strip us and rape us at the airport, but they are unable or unwilling to do the hard work of shutting down lawlessness in our cities and on our borders.

They go after Bernie Madoff for a billion dollar ponzi scheme while running a trillion dollar one of their own.
They will shut down kids' lemonade stands for selling fifty-cent drinks without a permit, while they refuse to jail the perpetrators at Goldman Sachs for selling trillions in fraudulent financial instruments that crashed the world economy.

Our governments discredit morality and the law by twisting it in knots while handing money to society's enemies.  They abuse our personal liberty by criminalizing screwing in a light bulb, using too much salt, or owning a gun while they allow Wall Street thugs and Main Street thugs to rob us while smirking for the cameras. 

Are they discrediting law and liberty on purpose?  Am I the only one who sees this?

Whether you’re looting Main Street or Wall Street, or passing incomprehensible laws, or just entertaining yourself with ball sports, porn and XBox while you wait for your messiah...

We have all damaged and degraded the human race.


LD Jackson said...

We would all do well to take heed to the words of Michael Nutter, as well as the words you have just posted. Dare I say it, the human race isn't what it used to be and we are all at fault.

Well done, Kurt.

OD357 said...

Silver, you hit the nail right square on the head. Raising kids or thugs is no different that raising dogs. Reward the good and punish the bad behavior. We need more prominent black leaders condemning negative stereotypes. Instead we get Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons making excuses and blaming "the man".

Bunkerville said...

Too many big cities have simply become no more no less than "Lord of the Flies". Unsafe at any speed. With more Mayors like Rizzo and Nutter, and we might just make a dent in taking the cities back.

Anonymous said...

I think you're spot on with this one Silver.

Sometimes it just seems like the whole world has been turned upsidedown.

Rob said...

Add this man to the list with Bill Cosby of black men who aren't afraid to speak out against the self-defeating urban culture!

As for black men, suck it up! If you're man enough to do the deed, then own up and be a Dad, not just a donor. Stop being "baby daddies" and be fathers.

Anonymous said...

The British and the Europeans made a tragic, irreversible error when they invaded the lands of non-white peoples and exploited them because they assumed native peoples were inferior probably for four reasons:

1. They weren't "Christian"

2. They weren't "civilized"

3. They weren't invading Europe and the British Isles in search of a wider world filled with "treasure," therefore they couldn't possibly be as smart, as brave, as enterprising and as deserving as their Caucsian tormentors.

4. The natives looked weird and wild, and with the exception of the Aztecs and Incas, they lived in squalor, therefore they couldn't be much good, could they?

Five hundred years ago standards were very different from what they are today. Superstition was rife, Christianity was horribly misunderstood by most of its adherents and was too often authoritarian, repressive, corrupt and administered by the threat of violence. Aggression and the use of force were considered acceptable -- even virtuous. This did not change very much until The Enlightenment.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that it was wrong to invade, conquer and enslave or otherwise exploit native populations.

In bringing Negroes to these shores and treating them like beasts of burden instead of fellow human beings we set in motion a chain of events that has led inexorably toward the clash of cultures in our midst that is surely bringing about the death of White Christian Civilization.

After we started mixing our blood with that of the Negro slaves it was the beginning of the end for us. In mistreating the African Negro, the American Indians, and certain Asian groups we sewed the seeds of our own destruction.

The arrogantly aggressive implantation by Western Powers of the modern state of Israel in the midst of hostile Arab territory further exacerbated the problems set in motion during the Age of Exploration and Discovery.

For a time we Judeo-Christian Caucasians thought we were meant to dictate terms to the rest of the earth by dint of our inherent, God-given superiority, which we felt was self-evident.

The Bible tells us "Whatsoever a man soweth that also shall he reap." The scriptures also tell us that we will be made to pay for the the sins of our forebears for countless generations to come.

We have earned the terrible legacy you see happening all around us today. As virtue is its own reward, so sin invariably brings about its own punishment.

The Mills of God grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Riots Stoke British Ethnic tensions

Take a look.

History makes it plain that We did did this to ourselves

~ FreeThinke.

Rob said...

@FreeThinkie This may be off-topic for the post at hand, but you said, "Five hundred years ago standards were very different from what they are today ... Christianity was horribly misunderstood by most of its adherents and was too often authoritarian, repressive, corrupt and administered by the threat of violence."

I'd argue that it is much the same today. For many people, many of the core tenets of Christianity are more based on pop culture than actual, personal Biblical study.

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...


I don't believe that this has anything to do with race. It has everything to do with culture... the culture of the nuclear family, Mom, Dad and n children with Totems and Taboos that eventually grows= into a Civilization and It's Discontents.

But it all begins young, and in the home LONG before the children show up in pre-school.

There are many civilization variants based upon family structure, exogamy, endogamy, etc. But in the end, if people desire "happiness" their lives will be lived within a traditional circle centered upon a nuclear (and not a non-traditional) family.

Z said...

FJ, it is about culture... and I can't tell you how many Black people I have met who bemoan colonization less than the fact that their people kicked the colonizers out too early. I'll never forget one Nigerian woman in particular saying "but we are starving again now, when I was a little girl, the British were there and we ate and our city was clean."

Silverfiddle, this is an excellent piece again. What came to my mind was those black men in camouflage, carrying sticks and wearing berets who the people around them said would not speak to them; would not respond to them as they stood in front of voting precincts intimidating the hell out of voters. They have been found perfectly innocent and have been defended countless times at my blog. Law and liberty gets ignored for certain could that be NOT 'on purpose?' Holder said "they're okay" and THEY ARE OKAY no matter HOW intimidated the people felt :-) That's only one example, of course. WHen people need votes, they turn the other way...

Some of us have damaged and degraded the human race more than others. SOme of us see it and want to change it more than others, and the others, instead of insinuating this might as well just come out and say "What is with you people who believe in morals?" "Who says what's RIGHT and WRONG?" or "How can you even consider that someone can shoot back when attacked?" etc etc ..........too many etceteras :-)

Anonymous said...

To Robert Mugabe,et al.

When'er the Brits are driven away
Black tyrants often come to stay.

When White Men let their burden down
Savages will take the crown

Place it on their nappy heads
Throw themselves in with the Reds

Rule their folk with iron hand
Wreaking havoc o'er the land.

When blacks rule blacks, no one is free
Their nature turns to tyranny.

How much blood might have been saved
If they'd stayed happily enslaved!

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

Actually, it was Wilson Goode, the first black mayor of Philadelphia that dropped the bomb, not Frank Rizzo. Rizzo was mayor from 72-80, and was mayor during the first MOVE incident. Goode was mayor from 84-92 and was mayor during the bombing in 85.

The first MOVE incident was in 1978 when police attempted to enforce a court order evicting them from their group house in Powelton Village after a year long standoff. One police officer was killed, shot in the back of the head, seven police officers, five firefighters, and three bystanders were wounded in the shootout.

Nine MOVE members were convicted of third degree murder and as far as I know are still in jail. Having been denied parole since 2008.

The MOVE house was less than half a mile from my mother's house with nothing more than Cobbs Creek Park between us, and only a few blocks from where my grandmother and family had previously lived. The family sat on the front porch listening to both the story unfold on the news and to the gunfire coming from the other side of the park.

The MOVE bombing took place in 1985 at the house on Osage Avenue, which move had tactically reinforced. The group had reinforced the walls with tree trunks and built bunkers inside and on the roof of the house. It was the bunker on the roof that the police dropped the bomb on.

The incident started in the morning with a 90 minute gun battle between 150 police and the MOVE members inside the house. As I recall, the bomb wasn't dropped until late in the afternoon on the bunker that police were taking fire from.

According to the accounts at the time, the MOVE members were still shooting at the police and fireman as the entire block burned.

There is crime and there is insurrection... this group would seem to tend towards the latter.

Jersey McJones said...

Why do you cons still hurl that stupid epithet about SS that it is a "Ponzi Schmeme." Do you have a cluse in the world what a Ponzi Scheme is?

SS is a generational transfer of wealth entitlement. We do not get what we pay into it, someone else does, and in turn we receive our retirement funds from someone else. No one is scamming anyone here. No one is profiteering.

SS was set up to deal with the huge problem of elderly poverty in America. And it worked. Do you really want to go back to the days of high elderly poverty? Really?

At any point in you guys minds do you ever put pragmatism ahead of ideology???


Finntann said...

And it only works when the number of people paying in, outnumber the people taking out.

Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me:

Ponzi Scheme: (Business Dictionary)

Scam in which gullible public is enticed with the promise of very high returns in a very short time, but is based on paying off the early 'investors' from the cash from (hopefully ever increasing number of) new 'investors.' The whole structure collapses when the cash outflow exceeds the cash inflow.

Nothing works better than a government enforced ponzi scheme in which you must, by law invest... at least for awhile.

Finntann said...

No one is profiteering? That is where you are wrong, the government is profiteering.

What you say would be true if the government actually held onto the social security trust fund, but:

"The federal government takes in more than it needs through FICA taxes to pay current Social Security recipients, spends the surplus on anything it wants, and has put into the Trust Fund $2.6 trillions of Treasury paper of no intrinsic value, a debt imposed on future American taxpayers. Had that $2.6 trillion been invested in American industry, in assets of real value, future taxpayers would not be obliged to pay off another one of Uncle Sam’s huge debts. That investment would have created jobs and more wealth."

In 1950, there were 16 workers paying taxes into the system for every retiree who was taking benefits out of it. Today, there are a little more than three. By the time the baby boomers retire, there will be just two workers who will have to pay all the taxes to support every one retiree.

Fewer workers for more retirees mean each worker bears an increasing financial burden to pay the benefits that Social Security has promised. The original Social Security tax was just 2 percent on the first $3,000 that a worker earned, a maximum tax of $60 per year. By 1960, payroll taxes had risen to 6 percent. Today's workers pay a payroll tax of 12.4 percent.

It is going to get much worse. In order to continuing funding retiree benefits, the payroll tax will have to be raised to more than 18 percent. That's nearly a 50 percent increase.


Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year.

Anonymous said...

UK Rebels Recognized as Humanitarian Intervention Looms

Freedom and democracy show their bright side to the now illegitimate leaders of UK.

9 August 2011

THE HAGUE -- NATO’s “mission-of-mercy” activities in Libya have been temporarily curtailed to meet the looming humanitarian crisis in England. The UK rebels, who are rightfully burning and looting London and other cities around the UK, will be given their own embassy and declared the legitimate and bona fide government of Great Britain by NATO’s Col. Obama.

David Cameron and Queen Elizabeth have been ordered to immediately step down from power now that their authority to rule has been clearly and justifiably undermined by the righteous rebels of UK, the Transitional Mob Council (TMC).

The evil and inhumane actions of the illegal government of England in dispersing and arresting the charming TMC rebels amounts to international war crimes which require an immediate humanitarian intervention from the NATO powers.

“In the event that the tyrants Cameron and what's-her-name refuse to step down and recognize the rebels as the legitimate British government,” threatened Col. Obama, “then US and NATO warplanes are prepared to enforce a 'no fly zone' over Great Britain.“

NATO and the US military have consistently denied any reports that they will target the private residence of the illegitimate Prime Minister and his entire evil family for assassination if the reigns of power are not transferred to the TMC rebel leaders who are fighting for their just cause.

The UK rebels, who have been oppressed for centuries, are fighting to liberate themselves from the corrupt British regime by burning cars, smashing the glass windows of stores and police boxes, and stealing autocratic television sets and other electronic gadgets that rightfully belong to the TMC rebel hords.

US President Obama told Fox news that Britain’s TMC rebels should be recognized and supported by the international community. Otherwise bombing will commence on Thursday Aug 11, at 5 am, beginning with targeting the British power grid and London city water supplies.

Meanwhile Libya and the USA have expelled the puppet British ambassadors and have offered the respective UK embassies be handed over to the TMC rebels.

Submitted by FreeThinke

Speedy G said...

SS was set up to deal with the huge problem of elderly poverty in America.

Actually, it was a bribe to get millions of the elderly OUT of the workforce so that younger people could take their jobs and FDR could look like he was a "job creator".

Speedy G said...

THAT is how "government creates jobs".

Speedy G said...

If Obama wanted to "solve" the jobs problem in America he would LOWER the retirement age to 55.

*poof* He instantly literally creates MILLIONS of high paying jobs.

Anonymous said...

Fj said:

"I don't believe that this has anything to do with race. It has everything to do with culture ..."

Yes and no. Cultures spring directly from ethnicities.

Also, we must recognize that what-we-call "racism" today is the natural response any and all identifiable factions have to anything perceived as markedly different from themselves.

Suspicion, distrust and resentment of anything "other" is an integral part of the human condition.

It's a very rare person, indeed, who can see past the Ubangi woman's distended lips, the steatopygia of Hottentot women, the wooly hair, thick lips and flaring nostrils of black Africans in general, and discern the common humanity that lives beneath of these off-putting surface characteristics.

We mustn't forget either that the suspicion and resentment works all ways. I'm sure blacks -- and all other identifiable racial and ethnic groups -- regard everyone different from themselves in a negative light.

Rarely do human beings deign to recognize virtue in others even on the individual level. We're a fractious, disputatious, fundamentally hostile lot.

All you have to do is drop in on most any internet chat room to prove that.


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...


Your steady show of facts and figures is always impressive, but in using them against an opponent with Jersey's mindset is a bit like using a howitzer to kill a mosquito.

Didn't anyone ever tell you it's not fair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man?

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...


Anonymous said...

SS is worse than a Ponzi scheme. People get into a Ponzi scheme voluntarily, while SS is forced at the point of a gun. Refusal to participate in SS brings a threat to our well-being and our liberty.

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

Cultures spring directly from ethnicities a reaction to their environment.

...and it's not the survival of the "fittest". It's survival of the "most mediocre".

Anonymous said...

Whenever a group of some given race color creed or religion behaves in a anti-social and dangerous manner, it is paramount that the responsible members of that group stand tall and loud and denounce such behavior. Well done, Mr. Mayor!

Jersey McJones said...


You have not demonstrated that SS is a "Ponzi Scheme." You have, though, reminded everyone that the government has been borrowing from SS for over thirty years now, and that's really, really bad. Rather than just raise taxes, anathema to stupid conservatives, the gov't put IOU's in SS and raided it to pay the bills.

That in no way makes it a Ponzi Scheme, because t-bills have plenty of value (I can't imagine what kind of moron would say they have "no intrinsic value" - that would be like saying that money itself has "no intrinsic value," a simplistic and stupid assertion.)


Speedy G said...


I think it's pretty OBVIOUS just "who" doesn't know what a Ponzi Scheme is... and here's a hint for you... it's NOT Finntann.

Finntann said...

Jersey, let me spell it out for you.

The government imposes a mandatory insurance contribution under federal law.

Takes the money and spends it, and leaves in its place an IOU (which is all a T-Bill is after all).

Then, the government having spent the money it took from me for social security is going to charge me (raise taxes) so it can pay it back?

This is the moral equivalent of you knocking over your bank to pay off your mortgage.

What social security is... meets the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission definition of a Ponzi Scheme:

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors."

That you are incapable of comprehending that is not my fault.

The only difference is that instead of one person or group of people siphoning off money, that money is being siphoned off by the government.

Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that Watergate was not a burglary, because it was done by the president.

The SEC goes on to explain that:

"In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity."

In this case the fraudsters are the government and the personal expenses are government expenses.

Furthermore, the SEC states:

"With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out."

Gee... sounds a lot like the social security administration's own annual report.

"Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided. "

And I might point out that "legislative corrections" are "disruptive consequences for taxpayers"

By the Trustees:

Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury,
and Managing Trustee

Hilda L. Solis,
Secretary of Labor,
and Trustee

Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
and Trustee

Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of
Social Security,
and Trustee

Speedy G said...

& Bastiatarian has a point. A regular Ponzi scheme is MUCH more fair... for no one forces the participants in a Ponzi scheme to contribute, but the government DOES force you to play theirs.

And the worst part of the government scheme is, if you DIE before reaching age 65... your children get NOTHING, no matter how much you contributed before your death, unless they're minors. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars.... *poof*

Anonymous said...


Calm down, and try to think before you react. Throwing temper tantrums is not a viable substitute for the exercise of reason.

How could money have intrinsic value, when its value is constantly shifting hour by hour?

Our currency has had no intrinsic value ever since we embraced Keynesian economics and then abandoned the gold standard. Our bills are redeemable for precisely nothing. In a very real sense our government in its infinite wisdom has seen to it that we are passing the moral equivalent of counterfeit money to purchase goods and services.

And then even the price of gold, precious stones and valuable metals such as platinum, silver, and even copper fluctuates according to the laws of supply and demand.

Land always has some value, so do houses, so do precious stones, rare metals, and such things as genuine antiques and officially recognized art, commodities, corn and soybeans, etc. -- even though their prices change according to market conditions.

However, our medium of exchange -- i.e. "money" -- because of artificial "stimulus" and other forms of monkeying around with markets by government is now threatening to go the way of the Shinplaster, the Confederate dollar, and the post-WWI German Mark.

If you ran your household the way most socialist governments run their economies, you'd be sitting in the street, clad in rags, barefoot, begging for a stray coin or two from passersby.

Consider this bit of ancient wisdom:

"Like the diet prescribed by doctors, which neither restores the strength of the patient nor allows him to succumb, so these doles that you are now distributing, neither suffice to ensure your safety nor allow you to renounce them and try something else."

~ Demosthenes (384-322 B. C.)

I wonder how Demosthenes knew what a pious fraud Socialistic Theory is nearly three-thousand years before FDR's Raw Deal? The idea that Social Security could possibly provide a decent retirement income for the average American is very silly. Even at its best, all it does is provide a subsistence income that never rises above the official poverty line.

Now just calm down before you have a stroke and listen:

Imagine if all the dollars confiscated by taxes that have run through your fingers in the course of forty or fifty years had been placed in your name in savings accounts and CD's, invested in government bonds, municipal bonds, real estate and stocks, instead. Have you any idea how rich you'd be if you'd been able to do that, instead of being forced at gunpoint to stuff it down the government's insatiable maw while hoping the God-damned beast won't bite your fuckin' hand off?

No only that, man, the funds you'd have been able to set aside would be all yours, and you' be free to pass them on to your children or other loved ones when you kick the bucket.

Instead of Marxism, what we need is to give ourselves and our children a thorough education in the virtues of thrift, savings and investment.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

Furthermore, the government sells social security as an insurance plan... gee, I wonder why they don't want to call it a tax?

Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.

Hence the reason the deductions from your pay are identified as FICA. Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Lets turn this around to make it easier for you to see.

Lets say an insurance company sells you a policy.

It puts that money into a trust, to pay out against future claims.

The company, struggling financially, decides to take all the money out of the trust and replace it with company stock.

Now... if this was being done by anyone in business, you would be screaming bloody murder and would want their head on a platter (a la Bernie Madoff)... but its not being done by just anyone, it is being done by our government.

And you sir, remain strangely silent.

I guess there are two sets of rules, laws, morals, and ethics... one for the common man, and another for our political overlords.

Anonymous said...

I guess I was wrong. Here's an explanation of why Social Security is NOT like a Ponzi scheme.

Anonymous said...

>Throwing temper tantrums is not a viable substitute for the exercise of reason.

Jersey's been getting more shrill and emotional lately. It's funny and sad at the same time.

Trekkie4Ever said...

That speech should be posted and aired nationwide.

This man cares and wants those kids to have a good chance in life and I applaud him for his courage.

I truly can stand behind this man. God bless him!

MathewK said...

About time black leaders told their people to pull their pants up and start acting like real men, not useless pustules contributing nothing to their families, their towns and their country.

I know most black men do the right thing, but there's a sizable minority of them who are nothing more than arrogant parasites doing what they feel like and pretending it's cool and hip. All they are doing is letting their families, children and country down.

Good on that Mayor and i hope he kicks some ass.

He'd better watch those liberal racists and bigots though, they don't take kindly to Christian messages from public officials. islam is ok, but not Christianity.

Finntann said...

Great Video B

Ducky's here said...

It would be absurd to quarrel with what he said but can it be effective? Not in isolation.

I believe the great failing and fatal flaw of Libertarianism is its disdain for community. The blind acquisition of goods and services and last man standing economics does not build a cooperative community. It builds alienation and in a laissez-faire system we can expect what e see from the underclass because, as a class, it is unlikely that their lot will change.

It's easy to say personal responsibility but that is not likely to arise as we oversee the masive wealth transfer upward.

Silverfiddle said...

I'm agreeing with you Ducky, with a caveat.

Just as there are various brands of liberalism and conservatism, there many flavors of libertarianism as well.

As I'm sure you've detected, I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Rothbard's analysis of money and banking was brilliant, but when he teamed up with Lew Rockwell it was an almost poisonous mixture.

Your statement is also why I awkwardly straddle Russell Kirk conservatism and Hayek's libertarianism (Hayek pointedly said he was not a conservative).

People must be free to pursue their own goals so long as they do no harm to others. Government sets the boundaries and polices them.

Ducky's here said...

Thanks for that clarification, Silverfiddle.

I do make the error of assuming Libertarianism = von Mises or even more conservative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Hayek sensed the problem I mentioned.

Finntann said...

If by community you mean government, sure... I'll agree with that, but government is not an essential or even necessary ingredient in community.

We had community in this country long long before the government had its tentacles reaching into every nook and cranny.

I think the fatal flaw in your argument is you equate government with community. So what? A free people can't come together in community without the coercion of the state?

Anonymous said...

Silverfiddle: This is an excellent post. You have a unique ability to get your points across with wit and clarity. I agree with your analysis 100%.


Most Rev. Gregori said...

Three cheers and a standing ovation to Mayor William nutter. If only more Americans had the intestinal fortitude to kick political correctness to the curb and speak the truth.

Silverfiddle said...

Thank you Linda!

Ducky: I am a big fan of Ludwig von Mises and the web site of the same name, but I am not a fan of the founder, Lew Rockwell.

Hayek pretty much hits the sweet spot for me.

And they all would protest at being called conservative, because they were not.

Divine Theatre said...

It amazes me that after seing how the Welfare State destroyed the black family people still don't have a clue!
Fatherless "families" abound! Feminism told women that it's okay to value your needs over those of your children. After all, you didn't lose your sovereigntly just because you became a mother! Working and single mothers are truly the bane of a civilized society. I know I have said this before and I will continue until people actually see the detriment these people cause to society. Higher crime, gang involvement, pregnancy and accelerated suicide rates among teens are but a few examples of the mayhem caused and/or suffered by these lost children. Bullying in schools has increased as we see more and more of these abandoned and marginalized children.
Educators cannot properly teach in a classroom full of undisciplined and neglected kids.
The Welfare State destroyed the black family. Feminism destroyed everything else.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, Finntann, and everyone else who doesn't get my point.

Before Social Security, because longevity was increasing, the modern world was upon us, and the conservative myths of the past were becoming even more inane, 48.6% OF OUR ELDERLY LIVED BELOW THE POVERTY LINE.

Today, it's one in eight.

Now, any of you crazed ideologues, please explain to me how SS is a friggin' "Ponzi Scheme."



Jersey McJones said...

Oh, and Divine, don't be so ready to blame feminism for the broken family.

Don't be fool enough to believe men we'ren't fine with that slittle sleazy arrangement.

I blamed feminism, when I was young, for these things as well. And then I lived life and realized men took more advantage from feminism than women ever got out of the movement.

If anything, women need more advocacy, more "feminism" - not less.

Don't be fool enough to believe that by putting yourselves back in the hands of men that all our lives will improve. Only us men gain from that. Personally, I don't want that kind of "gain." I don't want to control my wife. I want her to be happy - no matter anything anything else. That's real love. Not control. Control is not love. It's tyranny. And tyranny always ends badly.


Anonymous said...


It's not about feminism or liberalism or justice, or crime and punishment, et al. It's about the elevation of Envy, Spite, Malice, Vengefulness, Selfishness, Irresponsibility, Disrespect for Elders and for Authority, Sloth and Criminality to the undeserved status of Respectability.

It's also about the denigration, demotion and probable dissolution of cherished societal norms like Duty, Honor, Patriotism, Order, Discipline, Thrift, Prudence, Good Taste and Consideration for the Needs and Feelings of Others.

Discrediting the virtuous while exalting the profane is the very definition of perversity.

Liberalism has made us a SICK society.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

I liked the video too, Bastiatarian. Lays it out very clearly, but the brainwashed minions of moronitude and the willfully blind will never allow themselves to get it.

~ FreeThinke

PS: I know moronitude isn't really a word, but I still think it's a suitable mode of expression in this context -- better than moronicity anyway. Hey! Moronism might be a useful term for future reference. - FT

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Your thinking is muddled. different people have showed you just how wrong you are about social security. The statistics you cite do not go to the issue of whether it is a ponzi scheme. Stubborn and wrong, the mark of a hardcore liberal.

And men have taken advantage of feminism, to the detriment of our society.

Usually you make some sense, but you've got it all wrong on all subjects this time. At this point, everyone can see it but you. You're just making a fool of yourself, and the name-calling at the end is the weak cry of a loser.

Z said...

I completely agree with Divine Theatre about what she explains has and still is such a bane to society but I wouldn't use FEMINISM as the cause.

When Welfare went into affect, many men couldn't get welfare if he was living at home bringing in his paycheck. He moved out, mommy got welfare help. Sure, some women without their man for legit reasons (death, divorce, abandonment) needed help (which used to come, at least some, from THE EXTENDED FAMILY)...but when it caught on that not having the big guy around paid off, off he went. Sure, they had more children together, too..He wasn't gone all THAT long :-) Or, he was back JUST long ENOUGH!,...
Men DID have a lot to gain from THAT arrangement....IF they had little CHARACTER.

WHat we need is better parenting ; or at LEAST a mother who's at home while dad's working..or even vice versa...I've seen that work quite well, too.

Let me just add that putting ourselves in our husbands' hands can be a VERY good depends on THE MAN. For me, it was bliss. I respected him, he respected me, he never told me what to do (except would I PLEASE not watch CNN so much? :-), but I knew he was there, I was safe in his hands. It wasn't a feminism thing, it wasn't a was love and respect.
I wish more young women would catch on to that; it can be a very good place to be.
Until he dies suddenly and you don't have that.......believe me

I like my word verification FLIGOOP!