Trenitalia Hates Its Passengers (except Executive): An Open Letter to Trenitalia

Last night I was returning from Milan to Venice, where I am spending two weeks' vacation, on your train Frecciarossa #9757. The direct road was blocked by your police, who had the brilliant idea to investigate an accident for hours without any regard for the fact that the trains need to go through. Train #9757 was then rerouted via Bologna, which was an acceptable solution to me (second only to my preferred solution of abolishing the state, including the police and your state run railroad, and introducing Anarcho-Capitalism, with the trains going through being prioritized over any investigations by the then private security companies, no matter what accident or crime remains unsolved, but I digress). 

At Bologna, the conductor of train #9757 (hereinafter conductor #1) had the brilliant idea to tell her passengers to Padua and Venice to "forget tickets" and to transfer to train Frecciarossa #9434, which was going directly to Padua, bypassing Verona, so we'd get back with an hour less delay. I was in no hurry to return to Venice, as long as I got back at some point last night. In hindsight, I should have stayed on train #9757, where at least I had an assigned seat, but I figured the conductor knew what she was doing and took her advice. Of course, giving adequate information in Italian and in English was difficult in the hurry, but conductor #1 at least should have warned me that in return for getting home faster, I'd be literally treated like cattle. 

In retrospect, it's never going to end well if a petty official tells you to forget your documented rights. They're not going to give you anything extra. They'll only take away what you had. 

Train #9434 turned out to be moderately crowded already, so there weren't enough seats for all the newcomers. I ended up finding a vacant seat in the executive car. 

I should add that your executive seats are nothing to write home about. Granted, they recline and swivel, but otherwise they are, if anything, less comfortable than your business class seats, probably because they need to be adjusted, which I didn't bother to figure out under the circumstances and because I didn't want to interfere with your equipment any more than necessary, as I hadn't paid for its use. I had considered booking executive for my trip to Milan, but for some reason business was the highest class your system offered me for both outward and return. Maybe they were all booked, or maybe one needs to have special connections to be allowed to book one of those sacred seats of yours? The behavior of the conductor of train #9434 (hereinafter conductor #2) certainly seemed to suggest that much. Are they reserved for the pope and President Trump, or something? Anyway, the only real benefit appears to be the extra space, so other passengers can't sneeze and cough at you as badly and infect you with their respiratory diseases. 

Back to the main story, when I entered the executive car, there was an American couple with I think two kids and a baby, a young American lady, and a young Italian gentleman. The young lady and the kids seemed to be particularly enjoying lounging in their executive seats. She was like, "Yay, we get to ride in executive!" 

At that point your conductor #2 had the chance to become the hero of the night by making up for the misconduct of your police. We'd have gotten a free upgrade to executive, we'd have all but forgotten the delay caused by the misconduct of your police, and we'd have had nothing but good things to say about your railroad. All she had to do was nothing. Instead, she chose to defend the sanctity of her executive car against us business class bums with all her petty powers. 

I offered to pay for executive by credit card or trade the compensation we were owed for the delay for upgrades, but conductor #2 flatly refused all offers. Now, I get it that the root cause is your primitive booking system, which apparently doesn't have a miscellaneous category for selling ad-hoc upgrades. That reflects poorly enough on your railroad, but the real problem is the insulting way your conductor #2 handled the situation. 

She claimed she was doing us a favor by letting us on "her" train at all. Obviously, she considers "her" train her private property, her own miniature railroad, where she gets to hand out favors to passengers of other trains. Well, I paid a fare to Trenitalia, not to an individual conductor, and getting me to my destination as efficiently as possible under the circumstances is the responsibility of all Trenitalia (my auto correct now wants to call your railroad Genitalia) staff. The concept of staff doing a customer a favor is an impossibility. Anything staff does for a customer should be done happily. The customer is king. 

She said she was unable to sell us upgrades to executive as "Your tickets aren't valid on this train," as if we we were fare dodgers. She should have said, "You weren't originally booked on this train." 

The worst part, however, was that she kept saying, "You're business class passengers" in a tone as if a business class passenger were something she just found under her shoe. 

Some of the dialogue I attribute to conductor #2 may in fact have been said by her assistant. That, however, doesn't matter so much it's a Doesn't Matterhorn, as both were in perfect agreement on their nasty treatment of their passengers. 

In the end, four other passengers and I had to spend the whole trip at a tiny conference table in the executive car, seated on what's is best described as stools, while all the executive seats remained vacant all the way to Venice Santa Lucia. So your conductor #2, in one of the dumbest businesses decisions I ever witnessed, destroyed a product (let the seats go to waste) rather than give it away as free upgrades or free samples. 

I don't know if that's company policy at your railroad, or if conductor #2 was acting on her own nasty initiative, but it is an act so petty, so wasteful, and so insulting that I, for one, will never set foot on a Trenitalia train again. You could have made more than a half dozen passengers happy, turning them into loyal customers who'd have told everyone how your staff unbureaucratically solved the problem your police created, but now you have the same number of former customers who have nothing to say about you except how petty and nasty you are and how you hate your own customers (except executive, and executive apparently is sold only to your insiders). I, for one and for sure, will tell everyone and publicize everywhere what a horrible railroad Trenitalia is and how much your staff hates its passengers (except executive). 

Given that all but one passenger in the executive car were foreigners, your conductor #2 also acted as a terrible, horrible, very, very very bad, no good cultural ambassador for Italy, leaving the impression that Italians are petty, nasty, and cruel. I, for one, despite having had to deal with one or two petty and nasty Italian officials before, thought that Italians in general were less rude than, for instance, Germans. That, of course, was naive, and I now have the impression that in Italy there are just as many nasty people as in every other country. I had even considered moving to your beautiful country and exploring it by train, but given that I won't do business with Trenitalia ever again and that Italo seems to serve only the major cities, that's off the table now. 

The only thing I regret doing last night, in addition to changing trains in Bologna, is referring to conductor #1 as a "train captain" in my discussion with conductor #2 and her assistant. Trains don't have captains. They have conductors. Especially yours, as your conductors decidedly lack the competence and courtesy one would expect of a ship's captain. I heard that ridiculous term from the conductor of the only other Frecciarossa (funny, my auto correct turned this into "Freakarrosia," which is frankly closer to the truth) train I took before, telling me to show my ticket to the conductor of another train I had to transfer to due to a missed connection, of course on account of another delay of that so-called high speed train of yours. 

Let me conclude by congratulating you on your truly Teutonic level of customer service. I have never been treated this disrespectfully outside Germany, by Lufthansa and Deutsche Bahn, two (formerly?) state-owned companies legendary for their poor customer service. I bought a business class round trip ticket from your railroad. Your conductor #2 made it abundantly clear that to your railroad business (and presumably all lower) class travelers are nothing but scum. There's that old Prussian militaristic saying, "Mankind starts at the petty officer," implying that anyone who isn't at least a petty officer is subhuman. Apparently, to your railroad, anyone below an executive passenger is subhuman. 

As for a possible resolution, I don't think you're going to be willing to do what it would take, simply because qua faceless government bureaucrats, some of whom are probably keeping those executive seats off the market for their own personal use, you aren't even able to understand what a level of disrespect it constitutes to force passengers to ride in basically jump seats while executive seats are available mere yards away. A mere refund of the remaining fare would only add insult to injury. The absolute minimum would be warning conductor #1 to consider the consequences of her crazy plans, firing or at the very least docking one month's pay of conductor #2 and her assistant, and a free executive ticket for a distance equivalent to Bologna to Venice Santa Lucia for every person who was booted from an executive seat last night, or if those cannot be identified, for every person who made the fateful decision to change trains at Bologna. As I doubt you have the moral fiber for that, I'll just keep telling everyone who will listen or not what a horrible, terrible, very, very, very bad, no good railroad you are. I'll keep my account open for a bit, awaiting your bedbug letter. If you don't know what a bedbug letter is, Google is your friend. 

What Is the Market?

One reason why anarchists and minarchists are arguing at cross-purposes is the failure to understand what the (free) market is and how it works. Let me explain. 

What is a market? A market is a place where people exchange goods and services. 

What is free? Free means free from initiatory force. 

What then is a free market? A free market is a place where people exchange goods and services voluntarily. 

The state claims a coercive monopoly on the provision of certain goods, i.e., defense and justice. The state claims only it is qualified to provide them. 

Anarchists hold that the market will provide these goods better, cheaper, and more humanely, like it provides all other goods in that fashion. Minarchists claim that for a free market to exist, it needs to be created and protected by a preexisting limited government, but they cannot explain how such a limited government could come into or remain in existence. 

This apparent contradiction is best explained in a model. Let's assume there's a world that contains three individuals: Alice, Benito, and Carl. 

The three of them go to the market to trade. Alice is more intelligent than Benito and Carl. Therefore, her products are more advanced and more valuable to every one of them. 

Because she is more intelligent, Alice has made a pistol for her self-defense. Benito and Carl have only slingshots, as they don't know how to build anything more advanced. 

Now, the archist argument is that that market is not free, because Alice has got a gun, but the other two haven't. Alice can force the other two to trade on terms that they would not agree to if they were on equal terms in firepower. Therefore, archists claim that the three of them have to set up a government, which will somehow administer the gun, i.e. the use of force, objectively. 

Yet, governments do not exist independently of individuals. Governments consist of individuals. 

So in our market, Alice, Benito, and Carl establish a government and have a democratic vote on whom to use the gun against. I bet you can imagine what happens next. 

Right, Benito and Carl gang up on Alice and vote to point the gun at her and expropriate her superior products from her, so they get for free what they could barely have afforded in a hypothetically truly free market, where no one can threaten to use force against their trading partners. 

This is precisely what has happened in our world. The minarchist solution is to plead with Benito and Carl for one of them to side with Alice. 

They promise Benito and Carl that if they let Alice go with her tools now, she will come back with even more and better products, and everyone will be better off. But Benito and Carl only care about free stuff now. 

Then the minarchists explain to Benito and Carl that it is immoral to steal Alice's stuff, even if they steal by way of democratic government. But Benito and Carl only care about free stuff now. 

Besides, they have rationalized their crimes, so that they can go on looting, but still face themselves in a mirror. Benito makes himself believe that democratic government is holy and can do whatever it wants. Carl makes himself believe that Alice didn't really create her goods, but just found them somewhere, so she doesn't really have a right to them. 

So in the real world you only have two options: Alice keeps her gun and makes the rules for everyone, or Benito and Carl vote on what rules to make and enforce at the point of the gun they could never have created. The market cannot and should not be free as in "Everyone has the same firepower" or "No one should be able to threaten the use of force against trading partners." The market can only be free in terms and to the extent of "Everyone gets to keep the guns he can manufacture to defend himself with." This way, the most intelligent have the most firepower, and initiatory force and injustice is thus minimized as much as humanly possible. 

Sure, it's not ideal to have the intelligent and productive make all the rules, for to be intelligent and productive does not necessarily mean to be moral and just. But it sure beats the current situation, where the stupid and unproductive gang up into a majority and force their superstitions on their betters and loot from them. 

For a representative government to work, the majority would have to be intelligent and productive, instead of stupid and unproductive. Given that it isn't, there are only two ways to establish civilization on this planet. 

Either you adopt Anarcho-Capitalism straight, where the rules are made by corporations, where the richer shareholders have more votes. Or you have to go back to "anarchy light," i.e. the system the Founding Fathers established, with census suffrage, where the rich got more votes than the poor, so the latter could not outvote the former to loot from them. ("Anarchy light" because it attempted to replicate the results of Anarcho-Capitalism without fully going there, without recognizing individual sovereignty.) 

But if you go that far, you may just as well go the whole nine yards to Anarcho-Capitalism. But then, you can bury your head in the sand like the minarchists and hope that someday some miracle will happen and establish a market where no one has more firepower than anyone else. 

The funny thing is that the minarchists (or at least the objectivists) are vociferously opposed to a world government. I.e., they abhor the state of nature among individuals, but they are adamant that the state of nature be preserved among nations. 

But in logic, if it is wrong for individuals to live by the law of the strongest (which means the most intelligent, as conflicts are no longer decided by bare fists and brute muscle), then it is wrong for nations, too. So if you want a government to rule individuals, you have to want a world government to rule nation states. 

What we have right now between nations is the Alice, Benito, and Carl state of nature described in the beginning. Alice, the US, the most rational — or rather the least irrational — nation, rules as she sees fit, and Benito and Carl, or the socialist slave states of Europe and the theocratic states of Islam, want to disarm her via the UN. 

Which means that archists, minarchists, and objectivists have no argument on their side but the status quo. We need world anarchy, or the world government will democratically vote to disarm the US and annihilate Israel. But we cannot have individual anarchy, because it's never been fully tried and is scary. The archists are afraid of change and can only resort to "discussions" along the lines of "La, la, la, I'm not listening to this." 

Prove me wrong and try to prove me wrong. If you can. Otherwise I hope those government boots you're licking at least taste good. 

The Ultimate Obama Meme

Everything you always wanted to know about Obama and much more in a huge 4 x 4 matrix.

Unselfish People Are Most Selfish

Today it struck me that of all the people I have met, the unselfish ones are the most selfish. (In the traditional sense, not Ayn Rand's reframe.)

It's the most "liberal," left-wing, avowedly meek and tolerant moon bats, unselfish by their own accounts and only out to help others, that are most intolerant (of everything but left-wing stuff), opinionated, pushy, arrogant, touchy, resentful of criticism, entitlement-minded, greedy (for donations and tax money for their pet causes), and the first to call for a law that attempts to exterminate any of their pet peeves with psychotic violence. The same is true, to a lesser degree, of the wing nuts and Jesus freaks. (Maybe it seems to me to be to a lesser degree just because I never go to Utah or Mississippi and slum with the hardcore Jesus freaks.)

It's the people that in your face are warmest, friendliest, kindest, and most mild-mannered that will explode into a fireball of rage once you scratch the surface and question the beliefs they take for granted and regard as universal. Let's call it the Mother Theresa syndrome, after the bitch that believed that for helping those who were dying in agony find Jesus (instead of giving them medicine) she was entitled to free flights, at the expense of airlines.

It's not so much the objectivists (except for Rand herself) that defriend people for disagreeing with them. It's the moon bats, and to a lesser degree, the wing nuts. And while the objectivists / Rand fans I know can be jerks, just as Randians reputedly are, they pale in comparison with the moon bats.

True, there is quite some repudiating going on, but that's nothing against what happens if you question the principles of a liberal. And it's not because my opinions are closer to objectivists and libertarians than to moon bats and wing nuts. I've fought with all of them, and it takes much less to provoke a more psychotic reaction from a moon bat than from a libertarian.

I'd say I'm selfish (in the Randian sense of caring mostly about my own affairs), and that entails some of the above qualities commonly considered negative, like arrogant, opinionated, intolerant (of intolerance), greedy, etc. But compared with the unselfish people, I'm Gandhi (as are most objectivists and libertarians).

So while selfishness in the Randian sense can turn someone into a major jerk, that's nothing against the unselfishness of the moon bats. Given that observation, it's little wonder that the state is so ready to threaten and use lethal force to "protect people from themselves." The unselfish, the moon bats and the wing nuts, make sure of that by voting the way they do, for fascists like Obama and the shrub. Unselfishness is preached as a virtue, and observe the results.

And no matter how controversial Rand's reframe of "selfishness" is, she was right. Unselfish people are indeed no good.

The unselfish may be saccharinely friendly in your face (at first), give to the poor, and volunteer for the community, but if you disagree with their socialism and/or Jesus crap, at best you're dead to them, and at worst they call for a law to send you to a concentration camp. In fact, I think I can formulate that as a general rule: If someone I meet is unbearably saccharine, chances are she will explode into a fit of psychotic rage the first time I disagree with her.

This rule can be expanded beyond moon bats and wing nuts to include all second-handers, even libertarian ones. As a second-hander bases her self-respect on the number of her friends instead of on her own achievements, she will try to ingratiate herself with everyone she meets. But if her second-hander beliefs are questioned or once she is frustrated by the unworkability of second-handedness, she will react with all the negative qualities that are stereotypically associated with the straw man of the selfish person, although a truly selfish person has much less of them than an unselfish person.

The meek shall destroy the world. It makes sense: As there is no way their delusions can be defended rationally, flight and psychotic violence are their only weapons in an argument.

Objectivists, compared with the moon bats and wing nuts, you are gold! (You may want to copy and paste and treasure this one, as I'm not going to say that often.)

Friends of Gaddafi

In other news, the Libertarian Party (LP) officially renamed itself Friends of Gaddafi (FroG).

The French protested, as they are already called frogs and are not friends of Gaddafi.

The Moral Lacuna of Libertarianism

"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his own people that there will be no mercy."

— The Obama

Little did I expect I'd ever have to side with Obama against Ron Paul.

While nation building like in Iraq is not a good idea — the war there should have ended the day Saddam was caught — and it may be legitimate to speak of a welfare-warfare state in that context, the vicious, inhuman nature of the libertarian extremist anti-war attitude is now in plain sight.

While this was going on…

Meantime, hundreds of cars full of civilians headed out of the city, a Reuters correspondent said.

"Do we have to wait till he (Gadhafi) kills us all before the (world) acts. We are very disappointed," said Adel Mansoura, an air traffic controller fleeing with his family.

"When we heard the U.N. resolution, we were very happy and thought we had our freedom but now we have been left on our own to the killers," he said at a petrol station where dozens of other cars lined for fuel as they fled.

The head of the rebel National Libyan Council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, said the international community must act swiftly to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.

"Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi," he told Al Jazeera television. "The international community is late in intervening to save civilians from Gadhafi's forces."

"Today in Benghazi there will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council," he said. "We appeal to the international community, to the all the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians."

…Ron Paul had this to say:

"Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a 'no-fly' zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action,"

Yes, it is.

"…and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime."

You bet.

"Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a 'no fly' zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory…"

Glad to see that the mystic and meaningless title "sovereign nation" still is a license to murder.

"The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so."

Behold the death of a weak argument from ludicrous hyperbole.

"In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants congress the sole authority to declare war. …the president … would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked…"

If a government like Gaddafi's slaughters the people it pretends to protect, any other nation or any private organization has an absolute right to go in and help the victims defend themselves, while taking any reasonable measure to avoid collateral damage. This is a natural right stemming from every individual's human right to life, which takes precedence over any national or international law, which at this point becomes null and void.

Anybody who would put the law above human lives is less than a human being.

"This is not our fight."

Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, appeasing the nazis. Now, that was a good idea.

So if you ever see Ron Paul assaulted, like when Brüno tries to ass rape him again or a Gaddafi terrorist aims a missile at his plane, don't help Paul. He wouldn't want it.

Boy, am I glad that clown didn't get elected. (Never thought I'd say that.) Obama may be even more cowardly than the French, but at least he's been shamed into action instead of clinging to his delusions. Turns out Obama is indeed a better, or at least a less evil, person than Ron Paul.

"We don't have the money for more military interventions overseas… We have to rely on the Fed's printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars."

A couple missiles and some jet fuel won't drive the budget over the brink. But if it need be to help human beings being slaughtered while fighting for their freedom, keep the presses rolling and palm off another couple billion dollars in bonds on the Chinese.

As far as I am concerned, Paul and his ilk of Libertarian peaceniks have crossed the moral event horizon. If the French are braver than you, you're doing something wrong.

How, then, do minarchist libertarians and objectivists arrive at such delusions?

Minarchism and more narrowly objectivism hold that there must be governments, or else there would be chaos — which is somehow bad. Also, for some reason there's no world government — as would be logical if there were one "objective" set of laws — but mankind is arbitrarily divided into countries, or nation states, or rather tribes.

Every tribe has a government to pacify, arbitrate between the members of, and defend only its own tribe, as governments must be funded by enforced taxation, and it would be wrong to use that money forcibly collected for the "common defense" of our tribe to unselfishly and altruistically defend a foreign tribe.

What's more, our soldiers enlisted to defend their own families and tribesmen. Thus, they will readily fight for the worst scum, if only it belongs to our tribe, but it would be wrong to expect them to fight for worthless foreigners, be it defenseless women and children or whatever.

Thus, objectivism and minarchist libertarianism both evict themselves from the realm of morality. Belief systems that encourage their followers to idly stand by while a few miles away mass murder is committed, which they could prevent at little cost or risk to themselves, cannot claim to be moral in any way, shape, or form.

Ayn Rand, who founded objectivism and injected it with her mistaken notion of minarchism, correctly observed that a morality is a code to sustain human life, and that self-sacrifice is immoral. (Why would you value anyone's life more highly than your own?) Yet these two belief systems she shaped forbid saving life even if no self-sacrifice is involved and thus become self-contradictory and, at least in their politics, invalid. Minarchist libertarianism, which unlike objectivism is not a comprehensive philosophy, but merely a political ideology, is thus completely invalidated.

Now, what's the difference between minarchist libertarianism and anarchist libertarianism, between objectivism and (anarcho-)capitalism? Let's stick with the example of the Libyan civil war.

On an objectivist aircraft carrier, the captain would address his crew like this:

"As we get our funding from American taxpayers, and you enlisted to protect only America, we are not authorized to defend foreigners. Therefore, we'll sit here, waiting for a direct threat to America to emerge, enjoying the Mediterranean sun, and watching those bloody foreigners getting slaughtered. Their problem if they can't by themselves handle the dictator of the country allotted to them."

This is the moral bankruptcy of objectivism, or at least of libertarian politics. (In fairness I should point out that the better sort of objectivists finds a workaround for that dilemma by declaring that helping freedom fighters is in the US national interest or that every human life has an intrinsic value.)

On a capitalist aircraft carrier, the captain would address his crew like this:

"We get paid for defending our customers, and you signed on to fight on their behalf. However, every once in a while, we hand out free samples to people who are not yet our customers, like those Libyans over there. If anyone of you has a problem fighting for Libyans, there's the gangway."

This is the moral nature of capitalism.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Take That, Hopenchange!

You really are too damn dumb to get a hint, huh, Hopi?

People aren't frustrated with the pace of economic recovery. People are frustrated with you looting and aggressing against them.

The men and women who sent us here don't expect Washington to solve all their problems. But they do expect Washington to work for them, not against them. They want to know that their tax dollars are being spent wisely, not wasted, and that we're not going to leave our children a legacy of debt. They want to know that their voices aren't being drowned out by a sea of lobbyists and special interests and partisan bickering. They want business to be done here openly and honestly.

Then why have you been doing the diametrical opposite for the last two years?

"None of the challenges we face lend themselves to simple solutions or bumper-sticker slogans."

Yes, they do, every single one of them: Laissez faire.

"Nor are the answers found in any one particular philosophy or ideology."

Yes, they are.

"As I've said before, no person, no party, has a monopoly on wisdom."

But the Coke and the Pepsi parties have a pretty nice duopoly on stupidity.

You want an "honest and civil debate"? A civil debate with a thief, a slave driver, and a murderer? Any honest debate with a criminal like you cannot be civil.

Stop stealing other people's money. Stop forcing people to buy health insurance. Stop murdering people for defending themselves or smoking weed.

You and the state are not part of the solution. You are the problem. The only problem there is.

Go away. Get lost. Dissolve the government and get a job.

BTW, sayonara, Nancy Pelousy. Good riddance, bitch.

Jefferson's Oath of Allegiance

America being overrun with fundies trying to turn it into a Christian country and a federal government that can persecute anyone for anything, what would Thomas Jefferson's pledge of allegiance look like today, if the statists who invented pledges of allegiance to indoctrinate children to obey the state could make him swear? Maybe like this:

I swear eternal hostility against the flag of the United States of America, and against the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for none.

So what to do? Maybe this:

Don't vote. It just encourages the bastards. If voting could change the system, it would be against the law.

Then again, if not voting could change the system, it would be against the law. (For what it is worth, it actually is, in Australia. I bet you never knew Australia is a totalitarian state?)

So if you vote anyway, at least vote in anger. Against the Coke party and the Pepsi party.

"We the People" Murder Individuals

Must be Stupid Article Day at The Atlasphere:

If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws.

…

If the public doesn't like the rules, or the consequences to which the rules lead, then the public can change the rules via the ballot box.

Even if armed self-defense did lead to bloodbaths (which it doesn't — where guns are banned, like in Limeystan or Krautistan, the same going postal takes place, just with knives or illegally owned guns), neither the supreme court, nor congress, nor "we the people" would have any right to sacrifice one individual by disarming him and leaving him defenseless to save any number of others.

Stupid collectivist. Goes to show why you can't work with conservatives.

Libertarians, Liberals, and Conservatives

What's the difference between libertarians, liberals, and conservatives?

A liberal is a libertarian with a too small brain and a too big heart.

A conservative is a libertarian without any brain or heart whatsoever.

If That's Our Allies, We're Toast

You don't have to be literate to hate the guvernment government…

No, Ed Hudgins' audience is not smarter than him.

The Ed Hudgins Implosion

Or, no more hugging for Hudgins.

It's not a pretty picture when parables implode:

Health Care "Deeming" as Political Adultery

by Edward Hudgins

Let's imagine a woman who is getting pressure from some obnoxious sleazeball stud to cheat on her husband and commit adultery. She's tempted but, if caught, wants some excuse with which to placate her outraged husband so she can avoid a divorce. "Honest, honey, I didn't consent!" And let's imagine that the sleazeball wants to protect himself from a rape charge and probable beating by the husband.

So how could they do their deed and both cover their butts?

Perhaps, after sexy chit-chat over a few drinks in a bar, she says, "I'm really reluctant to do this." But they agree to go up to his place, ostensibly so she can help him hang his etchings or for some other lame-ass excuse that both know to be a lie. And she pretty much lets him have his way with her.

If later the husband finds out, she plays her "I told him 'No!' sort of" card. "I only agreed to drinks and to help decorate his walls!" When the husband sends the cops to haul the sleazeball off to jail, he argues that he "deemed" that she had consented and that what he did was perfectly legal. After all, he explains, she had the drinks with him and went up to his room to see his artwork, and they were just creating a fiction with which she might placate her husband. Of course, the two stories contradict one another. The police would probably rule this to be a case of adultery rather than rape and the slutty wife would face a divorce.

This is the scenario faced by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Political sluts?

Ignoring the slap to politicians in general and Democrats in particular this hysterical screed is meant to be, let's look at the language and Hudgins' implicit values.

That impossible contract "marriage" is a good idea. Any attractive man is a "sleazeball." Any sexually healthy woman is a "slut."

And this Victorian hypocrisy is datelined March 19, 2010. More like 1910.

Scratch a conservative and you find some beta loser driven to fits of jealousy by and itching to initiate the use of force against anyone who so much as looks at the piece of property inventoried as his "wife." Assuming she's worth looking at in the first place. Some "Objectivist."

"A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity."

— Robert A. Heinlein

"The moral failing of the adulterers and the Democrats, among others, comes from attempts to be dishonest, to fake reality."

The moral failing of this so-called Objectivist comes from attempts to fake reality.

Fact of reality is that no one alone can fulfill all the emotional needs of any other person. Monoamory is impossible, and any attempt to uphold it is philosophical suicide.

And this is meant to be an outreach to reasonable, freedom-loving people? More like an outrage. Little wonder Hudgins gets along so well with the fundies at those tea parties.

Sayonara, Ed. I'm off your mailing list.

No Alex for you! Come back ten trillion years!

Take That, Fuehrer's Car!

EADS will not mount a solo bid for the US Air Force KC-X tanker program, ending the company's highest profile effort to grow its footprint in the US market.

EADS CEO Louis Gallois ruled out a solo bid a day after the Northrop Grumman-led team involving EADS and the Airbus A330 said it would not respond to the Pentagon's request for proposals (RFP), saying the tender favored the Boeing-offered KC-767.

…

Meantime, European political leaders are blasting the US for perceived protectionism on KC-X, saying the request for proposals favored rivals.

Although it had no direct involvement in the program, European Union's trade commissioner, Karel de Gucht, says that "it is highly regrettable that a major potential supplier would feel unable to bid for a contract of this type. Open procurement markets guarantee better competition and better value for money for the taxpayer."

How can paying tax money to nazis be a better value for the taxpayer? Daimler AG, proud to be the manufacturer of "the fuehrer's car," owns 22.41% of EADS.

Daimler should have been dissolved after World War II, and the ground sown with salt. And of course no one should buy the fuehrer's car.

The EU notes that defense trade balance has heavily favored the US. In 2008, the US exported $5 billion from EU members and imported only $2.2 billion.

WTF? About the only sector of the economy where the trade deficit isn't the other way round? The fuehrer will not be content until America is totally re-colonized. If African socialism is, "What's mine is mine — what's yours is ours," then European national socialism is, "Our markets are ours — and your markets are ours, too."

The European Union's message was echoed by Germany's economics minister Rainer Bruederle. The RFP clearly favored Boeing, he says, adding that "also in defense procurement, free trade should not be curtailed."

Look who's talking. That mendacious moron is a member of the kraut libertarian party. Apparently, their definition of liberty is along the lines of, "Your markets are free for us to take." On the other hand, they don't mind it at all if American capitalist corporations like Wal-Mart find it impossible to compete with the Euro Orren Boyles and their pull peddlers in their highly regulated markets.

The only thing those assclowns ever heard about free trade or any kind of freedom is, "Arbeit macht frei."

Shove your tailfin-losing plastic planes up your ass.

ALEX' GENERAL WARNING: Flying the Fuehrer's Planes May Result in Death.

If Only We Had a Million Pols Like Her

Ladies and gentlemen,

Meet the next Governor of New York: Kristin Davis.

While branding "taxation as confiscation," the former escort empress said the legalization of prostitution and marijuana could provide $2.5 billion in revenue to help close the budget gap.

"I'm a natural Libertarian," said Davis, who also embraces gay marriage and the views of the National Rifle Association.

What more can you desire?

In fact, she ought to be made the Queen of the USA.

Speaking of which…

What's in a Word, Feminazi?

Now, I understand that some morons might object to my (or anyone else's) use of the word feminazi. (And you probably don't appreciate being called morons, do you, morons?) So listen good, morons.

Different people use the same word differently. For example, that fundie fascist moron Rush Limbaugh uses the word feminazi to disparage those heroic women who fight for their right to have an abortion. Now, there are many moronic right wing nuts, but Limbaugh takes the cake.

At times he is a source of some primitive but fun humor, though. Like Club Gitmo. It's fun, because in a way he's right — the terrorists there weren't punished nearly severely enough. On the other hand, it's simplistic, because there were and are many innocent people imprisoned there.

And then he spouts all that fundie shit while he himself is addicted to painkillers. So you'd think he'd cut other "sinners" some slack. There's a simple diagnosis for his condition: It's called galactically stupid.

But doesn't Limbaugh keep spouting Ayn Rand quotes?

Well, that's best answered with a scene from A Fish Called Wanda:



Otto: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

Everybody's favorite encyclopedic writers' collective notes:

In an interview, Gloria Steinem characterized Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi" as ironic since feminists and other political dissenters were among the victims of Nazi concentration camps and Nazi work camps. According to Steinem, "Hitler came to power against the strong feminist movement in Germany, padlocked the family planning clinics, and declared abortion a crime against the state — all views that more closely resemble Rush Limbaugh's. In her book Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, Steinem elaborates on the repression of feminism under Hitler, noting that many prominent German feminists like Helene Stöcker, Trude Weiss-Rosmarin and Clara Zetkin were forced to flee Nazi Germany while others were killed in concentration camps.

Now, a feminazi is not the same animal as a feminist. A feminist is a person who knows that women have the same rights as men. A feminazi, on the other hand, is the very antithesis of a feminist. A feminazi is a person that hates men and sex, that believes that women should have all rights and men none at all.

Observe (to use one of Ayn Rand's favorite words) that I said person, not woman. There can be, at least in theory, male feminazis, as people are able to hate themselves.

But even if the nazi German nazis persecuted feminazis along with feminists, that doesn't make it illogical to call feminazis feminazis. Like all criminals, like the commies, the nazis had plenty of infighting. Just that someone was persecuted by the nazis is no guarantee that he or she was a not a nazi before or even was a nice person.

Likewise, the nazis rounded up and executed plenty of commies. That does not mean that those commies were less evil criminals with less vile plans than the nazis.

Commies and nazis are merely two competing gangs of thugs. In the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, Al Capone had some competition executed. That doesn't make the competition nice folks.

Under communism, all property is "owned" by the state. Under fascism, property is nominally owned by the individual, but de facto controlled by the state. The alleged beneficiary of communism is a collective called "the working class" — or to make it sound a little more inclusive, "the people." The alleged beneficiary of fascism is a collective called "the race" — or to make it sound a little more inclusive, "the nation." The true beneficiary of communism is the politburo. The true beneficiary of fascism is the fuehrer and his cronies.

Nazis, commies, mobsters, and feminazis are all evil, because they all have one thing in common: They use force, or make their government use force on their behalf, against innocent people.

Now I suppose I could call feminazis femicommies, 'cause they're a little closer to commies than to nazis in their politics. But though I like coining new words, I don't feel like it in this case. Femicommie just doesn't sound as good.

Besides, as I said, the differences between commies and nazis are slight. If you look at the Nolan Chart, you'll find that the traditional political spectrum with the commies as the diametrical opposite of the fascists is a lot of bullshit. Imagine it more like a clock, if that helps, with libertarians at the top at twelve o'clock, liberals on the left at nine o'clock, conservatives on the right at three o'clock, and at the bottom commies at 6:01 and nazis right next to them at 5:59.

So feminists are not like nazis, but feminazis are. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, feminazis.

Fundies, Meet the Big Gay Foreign Minister!

Traditionally, the head of the smaller party in a German coalition government gets appointed foreign minister. That happens to be Guido Westerwelle, who happens to be gay.

If he has to travel to Iran, that's gonna be big fun. Either the Iranian fundies tolerate a homosexual debauching their holy land instead of murdering him like all their own gayety, or they do murder him. Then it'll be interesting to see if those kraut cowards go to war with Iran over a dead gay politician.

What would be the politically correct thing? What will win out, pacifism or gay rights? (One hopes, gay rights.)

Krauts Getting Collective Head from Ass?

Wonders never cease. Yesterday, the krauts elected their new village idiot, and the libertarianish Free Democratic Party (try this for an oxymoron) walked away with 14.6 percent of the popular vote, the best result ever. True, they will have to govern together with the most popular party, the looters, fascists, and mystics of the Christian Democrats, who suckered 33.8 percent.

The left looters, however, split into the once powerful Socialist Democrat Party and the openly communist and loony Left party, remain in disarray. The Socialist Democrats have to deal with their worst performance in history, 23 percent. Thus, this mainstream populist looters' party is left just a few percentage points ahead of a "fringe, capitalists', rich people's" libertarianish party.

One wonders whether those stupid krauts finally managed to pull their collectivist, collective head out of their fucking ass and are beginning to understand that their national character, collectivism and socialism, is evil, or whether they were simply fed up with the concrete politics of the outgoing coalition government of looters left and right.

The Equalizer Shoots Back

To celebrate John Stossel's move from ABC to Fox and his own show, my favorite Stossel segment.



Who knows, that might be just the way for Fox to find some friends, after all. :P

Happy Birthday, America — Here's the Present!

Sarah Palin's resignation from an office that gave her the power to initiate the use of "legitimate" force constitutes the best gift America has got in quite some time. A temporary respite from the Palinization of America, from turning the land of the free, the home of the brave, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, into a Christian Iran.

The bad news is that she may have bailed out to dead cat bounce to an even more formidable looter's office in 2012. The somewhat better, but still ambiguous, news is that the fundie-publicans are down to her, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee.

On the one hand, it's good to see the fundie-publicans crash and burn, to see the fundie idiotocracy isolated, incestuous, and ineffectual. On the other hand, it was the only major party that at least pretended to be against big government.

I'm at a loss, however, how Palin can be considered to sport a "libertarianish theory of government." First, she's incapable of understanding any kind of theory. Second, support for gun rights don't a libertarian make. Paying lip service to small government by slashing the state budget while lobbying for a bridge to nowhere, then lying about it, and defending the bailout (without understanding it) is not a libertarian thing to do.



Governor, I worked with libertarians: I know libertarians; some libertarians are friends of mine. Governor, you're no libertarian (not even libertarianish).

But then, maybe we're in luck and the Palindrome doesn't intend to run for President, after all. Maybe she's just running.

Maybe Putin reared his head and scared the B. Jesus out of her. (Poor girl, doesn't even have an A. Jesus within her.)

From me, in lieu of a present, a link to my favorite Palin video:



Happy birthday, America! Fuck Sarah Palin.

(On second thought, don't. Her hillbilly zoo is already big enough. Too big.)

Nutcases Get You Coming and Going

This poor, apparently semi-sane fellow deluded into writing for Fascist Security Matters has a point about global warming: Someone that believes in global warming is a

genuine cuckoo who probably checks under the bed every night to make sure the bogyman isn't there.

…

Are these people crazy? You bet! Are the inmates in charge of the asylum? Yes, indeed.

…

If you ever wondered what it would be like if seriously deranged people were close to the seat of power in America, you can stop wondering.

Well, I actually remember that time quite well. It was called the George W. Bush administration, and the seriously deranged people were smack in the seat of power in America.

May I remind you of some of their superstitions? Tissue samples are life. Abstinence is a good idea. "Intelligent" design. So you're more comfortable having witch doctors like those in charge of nukes?

The inmates get you coming and going. With this two party system, your only choice is whether the next Dark Ages are brought about by moon bat global warming scaremongers or wing nut witch doctors.

Ultimately, there are only two solutions: Either educating people to such a degree that they will always elect Libertarian governments, removing the moon bat and wing nut witch doctor threats for good, or replacing governments with capitalism outright.