Free Broccoli

RSS

One of my posts kept getting bursts of notes, and I thought it was going to be my first post to reach 1,000 notes.

Then it hit 996 a few days ago and just…stopped. It’s still sitting there at 996.

heavygrenadier:

aboveauthority:

heavygrenadier:

aboveauthority:

utilitymaximiser:

*watching family guy*

"corporations wouldn’t release cure for cancer bc it would be unprofitable"

*stops watching family guy*

Fuck

I think the worst part was that there was virtually no difference by political party. Libertarians were just as likely to believe this as Democrats.

Wow.

If this were true, pharmaceutical companies would never release medicine at all.

Why did Merck release the MMR vaccine - they could’ve made a killing off of just treating the symptoms!!  

Herp derp evul corporations

Well, if the majority believe something, it MUST be true.

gunsgeargallantry:

moralanarchism:

priceofliberty:

maathangi:

we need much more gun control end of argument

wow you convinced me

That’s the most persuasive argument I’ve ever heard. 

Where do I turn in my guns?

Carbon Tax vs Minimum Wage

laliberty:

The former drives up costs of producing carbon. This incentivizes firms to reduce their carbon dioxide output, including spurring innovation in making carbon-dioxide become more productive (doing more with less, making that fuel work harder) as well as seeking technological alternatives to carbon…

Remember when Petro had good opinions?

eltigrechico:

“Dear Miss Rand: The purpose of this letter is to convert you to free market anarchism. As far as I can determine, no one has ever pointed out to you in detail the errors in your political philosophy. That is my intention here… Why am I making such an attempt to convert you to a point of view which you have, repeatedly, publicly condemned as a floating abstraction? Because you are wrong. I suggest that your political philosophy cannot be maintained without contradiction, that, in fact, you are advocating the maintenance of an institution – the state – which is a moral evil. To a person of self-esteem, these are reasons enough.”

— Roy A. Childs, Jr., Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand (1969)

Rand was really great with ethics -saying that you shouldn’t even compromise on moral principles and that rights shouldn’t be violated in the name of practicality- but then once she got into politics, all that went out the window. She personally couldn’t imagine how anarchism could work, and that was all the justification she needed to advocate for the violation of rights.

anarcho-americana:

maxlibertarios:

I don’t care about Ayn Rand

I like how it’s always voluntaryists talking shit about Ayn Rand

here’s a clue; she could bent ‘ol Stephen Molyneux over a stool in debate were she still alive accepting social security today

Voluntaryists don’t care for most people who try to justify the state’s existence. She’s right on so much that it’s that much more annoying when she’s wrong. Similar to Rand Paul, actually.

And since when is Molyneux the be-all and end-all of voluntaryism?

Socialism adds meaning to our life

kellysalterego:

When we pay taxes to the state and the state does things with our money, it ensures that we have a legacy. We contributed to a highway, to feeding a family, to public schools, to providing basic medical assistance to people in impoverished countries. Even if we die without having children or without making some great discovery or without getting rich and being able to donate millions, we still made some small difference. Our lives weren’t for nothing. 

You life has no value apart from the state. Even if you donate $1 to charity, that’s meaningless. But if a state steals a dollar and uses it less efficiently, well then your life is just chock full of purpose.

I can’t tell if kellysalterego is a troll blog.

utilitymaximiser:

One of the defining features of the cultural left is how they interpret factual propositions as if they were moral precepts. If you say to them “there are large inequalities in innate abilities” they interpret it as if you were proposing a moral statement, and they say (words to the effect of) “I don’t share your morality, so I disagree.”

I’m not saying leftists explicitly believe that holding egalitarian morality is sufficient proof of an egalitarian reality, I’m saying it falls into the class of unstated, implicit beliefs that are never considered directly.