Congratulations Left, You Got Milo Yiannopoulos

Someone was able to find a tape of Milo Yiannopoulos supposedly advocating pedophilia. I’m not a big fan of Milo. He claims to be a libertarian but he is not. He is an entertainer, a meshumad (converted, literally “destroyed”) Jew who does some good by exposing faux-liberal insanities, intentionally triggering people to see how reptilian they are.

This is how the game goes. If you can find some dirt on someone and take it out of context so it sounds bad, while of course everyone knows what the man was actually saying, we can all pretend we don’t and add another layer of fakeness to a ludicrous discussion where everything is already jammed with layers upon layers of meaningless nonsensical outrage.

For context, here’s the gist of what he said. He said that there isn’t a real problem in terms of sexual consent with sex between a minor who is sexually mature and able to make his own decisions, and an older man. What this boils down to in the end is that Milo is saying that the number “18” has no ontological significance in terms of sexual maturity and ability to make decisions on one’s own. One could theoretically achieve this status at, say, 13 or 14, and agree to have sex with an older man.

Is that a very bad idea? Of course. Is it gross and perverted? I would say so, yes. Should parents do everything they can to prevent this from ever happening? Of course. Can it be stopped by force from a libertarian perspective though? Probably not. That’s the essence of it.

Had he said this about an 18 year old, there would be no controversy. The controversy stems from the fact that he’s saying the number 18 has no real significance other than an artificial determination of the “age of consent”. From a libertarian perspective, Milo is correct. 18 has no significance. What is significant is a child’s ability to take care of himself without his parents’ help, to homestead himself in essence, take ownership of himself. Some children can do this at 10. Not many, but some. In Jewish law the minimum age is 6, when a father is no longer halachically obligated to support his child.

If we were to carry through this logic that ended Milo then, all religiously observant Jews who consider the Talmud to be authoritative could be accused of child abuse. But none of us just let our kids roam free at the age of 6 just because Chazal say we theoretically could do that.

So, too, Milo is not “advocating” that 13 year olds have sex with older men. He’s simply saying that if a 13 year old were to take ownership of himself and make such a decision, that society would have no right to prevent this by fiat law that 18 is determined to be the age of consent. His parents maybe would have a right to stop the child, if the child still lives it home and evidence shows that he has not taken ownership of himself even if he claims he has. But in the case where a 13 year old moves out of his parents’ home, he effectively has taken ownership of himself, even though his decisions will probably be quite bad and detrimental compared to those of more mature people.

Obviously, all but the most thoroughly insane – those who actually believe the neopolitical correctness they spew as to be an actual value rather than a publicity stunt to get pageviews and social media clicks – know what Milo was saying. But the world we live in is completely layered in veils of illusion that we all have to pretend are real.

So his book was cancelled, his career is probably over, it looks like he’s going to get fired by the very people who claim not to care about publicly weaved illusions, and the left can now feel all sanctimonious and rub in all of our faces that they “exposed a pedophile” and saved so many young lives while they continue rioting and destroying the property of innocents in protest against people that make them act like 5 year old children.

And western society, both left and right, digs itself deeper into the hole they are mutually digging together.

Israeli Government Admits Its Laws are Stupid, Legalizes all Judea and Samaria Capital (Settlements)

Every so often a government can have an attack of pure sanity and admit to the world and to the people it oppresses that its laws are meaningless and stupid. Every so often the stars align.

The government just passed the חוק ההסדרה, which could colloquially be termed the “Who Gives a Crap About Our Legislative Rantings Law We Were Just Joking Carry On” which basically says that any capital built in Judea and Samaria is now legal even if it was never built legally.

Mashiach is coming.

 

Trump Now says Building Houses for Jews “Impediment to Peace”

Ha ha. It took him what, a week to flip? Those who think this guy is going to move the embassy to Jerusalem are fooling themselves.

Trump met with King Abdullah unannounced and unscheduled, in Washington, and came out with this gem. See if you can spot the contradiction. If you can’t you’re probably sleeping. Says the White House:

“While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal,” the White House said in a statement.

Here’s a translation from politician into English:

“While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace,” the White House said in a statement.

 

 

Donald Trump or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Who Is Worse on Immigration?

roosevelt-trump-memeI am in no way defending anything that Donald Trump is doing with his immigration ban. I am not a fan of Donald Trump, I did not vote for Donald Trump, and I think the man is a bad person.

That being said, the liberals who are slamming Trump for his draconian immigration executive order should keep their hero, New Deal mastermind Franklin Delano Roosevelt in mind. Among other things, FDR:

  1. Imprisoned 120,000 Japanese American citizens, by executive order, for two and a half years, just because he felt they were a threat.
  2. Turned away 973 Jews on the St. Louis off the coast of Miami to their deaths in 1939.
  3. Refused to admit refugees from the Nazis into the US.
  4. Refused to even damage the death camp infrastructure during World War II allied bombing campaigns.

Beyond that, he confiscated the gold of every single US citizen and arrested anyone who kept any gold illegally. He imprisoned people during the Great Depression for doing work inside their own homes in his crazy “spread the work” schemes.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has banned visas for a few hundred people from Yemen, Iran, Syria, and three other countries he doesn’t like that I don’t remember. I don’t think that’s good. But I have perspective.

But despite all this, let’s all remember the Official Accepted Truth:

FDR is a beloved national hero, beloved by Jews especially, despite imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people by executive order and sending 973 Jews to their deaths. DJT is a racist Islamophobic scumbag for banning visas from Muslim countries. 

Is Hacksaw Ridge the Greatest Libertarian War Film Ever Made?

I saw Hacksaw Ridge last week. I believe it is the greatest war movie ever made, from a libertarian perspective. Before I explain why, let me address two important things first.

One, Mel Gibson directed this movie. He should be judged by his work, and his work here is phenomenal. Don’t give me any of that homophobia anti semitism stuff that I “shouldn’t be watching movies made by a Jew hater” etc. I’ve made it clear many times that I don’t mind anti semitism or homophobia. I only mind violence against innocent people. People can hate whoever they want as long as they don’t act on it violently, and to my knowledge Gibson never has.

Second, the story is a true one, only mildly embellished for cinematic purposes, of a Seventh Day Adventist Christian named Desmond Doss who refuses to carry a gun as a soldier in World War II, but saves 75 people as a medic on the field of battle. Based on my research of the story behind the movie, the man is a tzadik (righteous person) and to minimize what he did just because he may technically qualify as an “idol worshiper” is childish, shallow, and cheap. Cases like his convince me even more that it doesn’t matter what you believe about God as long as you do the right thing.

I’m reminded of a question that an acquaintance of mine from a previous Yeshiva asked Rabbi Yitz Greenberg during a debate with Rabbi Reuven Mann, both of whom I respect. Yitz was talking about a group of Christians, nuns or priests maybe, who dedicated their lives to taking care of the mentally retarded. Not just mildly retarded, but to the point of being unable to do much of anything by themselves except grunt.  This acquaintance of mine challenged Yitz, asking if these Christians were indeed good people, and that perhaps they only “looked like” good people by doing things that “looked like” chessed (acts of kindness) but indeed are bad people because they believe in Jesus.

Yitz let him have it, saying that if you’re going to call something fake kindness because it does not conform to the exact philosophical stringency that you consider truth, then you’re suffering from philosophical hubris. In my acquaintance’s words (Rabbi Reuven Mann was a teacher of mine in the past):

Regarding whether Christian kindness is akin in any measure to God’s view in the Torah, Rabbi Reuven Mann later discussed that although visibly similar, Christian kindness must maintain a different and corrupt sense of kindness, since Christian kindness is framed by Christian values: their kindness might even extend to a murderer pleading for mercy. In such a case, Judaism would demand death for a bleeding terrorist, while we witness other religionists hospitalizing the Arafat’s of the world, showing mercy to child killers. Although Rabbi Greenburg’s (sic) argument for Christians who care for deformed children is highly charged with pitiful feelings, we cannot condone a system of kindness, which also medically treats killers. An evaluation of any system demands that all professed beliefs be evaluated, as a collective whole. Therefore, if any system harbors destructive kindness, then the entire system is corrupt.

These kinds of dismissive views collectivizing hundreds of millions of people under such broad strokes is lazy and wrong. Everyone believes in different things. He has no proof whatsoever that those Christians who cared for the handicapped would have cared for a mass murderer. He’s just saying that because he wants to believe it, dictating from his philosophical pedestal what goodness counts and what goodness doesn’t count.

No two people believe in the same thing, and I don’t believe that anyone’s beliefs will save them in the world to come if they were not good people. I’m a dualist. Belief and action and totally separate. He integrates them, and I think that’s wrong. The only belief that really matters is the belief in doing no violence to innocent people. The rest are add ons, in my opinion, and you pick whichever you think is right. Maybe you get extra credit if you pick the right ones. Maybe you don’t. But I doubt the extra credit is worth much compared to the actual test, which is what you do with your life.

But on to the movie review.

Why I believe that Hacksaw Ridge is the greatest libertarian war story ever is that the typical libertarian angle on war is that it’s wrong, don’t go, don’t fight, dodge the draft, refuse. That’s an OK angle, but Hacksaw Ridge is different. The angle here is, “The State is taking people to fight. I don’t believe in war, but I’m going to go to this war because if other people are being taken and may die, I have no right to stay home in safety.”

It’s straight out of Sefer BaMidbar:

הַאַחֵיכֶם, יָבֹאוּ לַמִּלְחָמָה, וְאַתֶּם, תֵּשְׁבוּ פֹה.

Your brothers will go to war and you will sit here?!

This is the warning that Moshe gives to the tribes of Reuven and Gad when they request to stay on the other side of the Jordan rather than cross. So Reuven and Gad go and fight with the other tribes rather than stay behind.

Desmond Doss absolutely refuses to pick up a gun. He has an equal conviction against killing and against just staying at home as a conscientious objector in the comfort of his home while others die. So he vows to do whatever he can to save as many lives as possible. He ended up saving 75 lives – both Japanese and American – while getting shot and wounded 3 times during the Battle of Okinawa in the process. All the while refusing to pick up a gun.

We libertarians can always look down from our moral high ground at those who volunteer for war as just misguided suckers at best. But if there’s a draft and people are being taken, while it is still moral to refuse service, it is above and beyond righteousness to go to the front lines of such a war, regardless of whether it is justified or not, and refusing to kill, doing nothing but saving lives in the process at the risk of your own.

Aren’t the soldiers getting shot at, guilty of being part of an unjustified invasion? Some of them, probably yes. There was no reason to invade Japan at all. But some were drafted into it by force, and to save those lives is justice.

Desmond Doss was harassed terribly by the State, and almost was imprisoned for years for refusing to pick up a gun. He made a promise to God that he never would, after almost killing his alcoholic father for beating up his mother. He made a neder (vow) to God and he didn’t break it. He would not bow to the State. He was not an anarchist or probably even a minarchist, but he had his lines that he would not cross, a value that was higher than the State, meaning he was not a Statist.

Hacksaw Ridge is not a movie about refusing to go to war or the injustice of war. It’s about doing what Moshe Rabeinu did when he voluntarily left Pharaoh’s palace to join his brothers in slavery. He didn’t have to do that. This was the first thing we ever see Moshe actually do as a man. He chose to. This is what Desmond Doss did.

It’s easy to refuse orders and sit at home. It’s not easy to refuse orders and go to war, not to participate in it, but to save those who were drafted into it, both Japanese and American, trying to save as many drafted slaves as you can from dying for the State, whichever State they were forced to fight for.

The only thing that I think Doss should have done differently is that he should have refused the Medal of Honor he got from that murderer Truman. I can’t say “That’s what I would have done,” because I probably would never have volunteered to go to an unjust war I don’t believe in just to save lives. So I’m only criticizing from down below here, not from up high, and I know my place.

Here’s What the Russian Hacking Complainers Are Really Saying

I’m trying not to follow this but it seems so bizarrely stupid I just can’t help it. That people are portraying that they actually believe this just confirms that we are populated with adult babies.

So here’s how I understand this. The Hitlery Clintonites are complaining that the Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails. And that this caused Americans to vote for Trump instead of Hitlery.

OK. Let’s assume that’s 100% true.

So what they are saying is that because Russia exposed corruption in the DNC and incredibly twisted satanic stuff in Podesta’s treasure chest of disturbia plus some of Hitlery’s explicit double-talk, it’s now Russia’s fault. Americans should not have known about any of this, and if they were kept in the dark as they should have been, Hitlery would be president and all would be well. Americans should not know about the corruption and sick behavior of the upper political class and because some of it was exposed, the election is invalid.

I’m confused. Shouldn’t the Hitlery Clinton people be mad at the DNC and Podesta for being what they are, instead of blaming Russia for exposing what they are? Nobody is claiming anything that Russia supposedly hacked is fake.

Stephen Hawking Proves Even So-Called Geniuses Can Be Economically Illiterate

luddite-main_fullI’m not sure how much of a genius Stephen Hawking actually is versus how much his intellect may be inflated in the public consciousness due to his ALS and his miraculous survival with it. The moniker of smartest man alive has somehow stuck with him where I doubt 99.9% of the people who see him that way have any idea of his work aside from a Brief History of Time. That’s really all I ever read from him. Admittedly I have no mind for complex mathematics and physics.

But I do have a mind for praxeology and logic and deductive reasoning. Apparently, I’m much better at it that Stephen Hawking, who seems quite the dolt on the subject.

Yes, Hawking beats me on physics and hard sciences, 100% I concede. But he like most others suffer from the Luddite Fallacy and thinking only one step deep when it comes to simple qualitative deductive logic.

Says Hawking:

The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.”

With not only jobs but entire industries disappearing, we must help people to retrain for a new world and support them financially while they do so,” he added.

Facepalm. The automation of anything does not lead to lasting unemployment. It never has and it never will. Factories themselves didn’t lead to the unemployment of those who make things by hand. Most of that employment merely shifted industries to making the machines. Automated factories will simply move factory workers to some other industry where labor is needed. Why does this even have to be explained to Stephen Hawking? What is the block in people’s heads that prevents them from understanding this basic truth?

It’s not an observation. It’s a logical necessity. Unemployed labor factors is a market that clears at a certain price. All markets clear by necessity, therefore all labor displaced by automation clears in some other form of employment. The only thing that can perpetuate unemployment is welfare and minimum wage, because these are coercive rather than market phenomena.

The more automation, the more labor is freed up to do other things, the higher the supply of stuff and the lower the prices of stuff. Standards of living rise. That’s what happens because of automation, so even if a group of workers is displaced into lower income jobs, the tendency is that the price of goods and services drop more relative to that drop because of the very automation that displaced them.

Typewriters didn’t lead to the end of the human race for displacing transcribers. Computers didn’t lead to the end of the human race for displacing typists. Amazon did not lead to the end of the human race for displacing brick and mortar retailers. Airplanes did not lead to the end of the human race for displacing transcontinental shipping companies. Cars did not destroy humanity by unemploying horse and buggy drivers. Computerized farming equipment and cow-driven plows. Lab grown meat will not lead to the end of the human race by unemploying cattle farmers for God’s sake man!

A cure for cancer will not lead to the end of the human race by unemploying oncologists, and a cure for ALS will not lead to the end of the human race for unemploying the manufacturers of Stephen Hawking’s specialized wheelchair.

In the absolute worst possible scenario when our entire lives are automated by machines and nobody can think of anything else that needs to be done, nobody would have to do anything anymore and we could all learn Gemara all day. Or physics. Or spend our time figuring out how to cure ALS. Or whatever.

It’s certainly an amazing thing that Stephen Hawking doesn’t get this. The phenomenon as to why he doesn’t get this should be studied. To me it is more interesting to solve than the problem of ALS, because economic illiteracy is ubiquitous and very dangerous. It leads to the outlawing of automation, which is what Hawking seems to be proposing. Doing that would kill many more people than ALS.

ALS research is part of my work, actually, since I analyze cutting-edge pharmaceutical research.