Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘comment’

From Tom Woods’ October 7, 2014 podcast, Austrian economist takes on bestselling college text, chapter by chapter, I noted that there was no challenge mentioned of mainstream economics textbooks advocating governments borrowing from private banks to pay for their legitimate government services rather instead of issuing the money directly, interest-free.

Screen Shot 2014-10-13 at 12.53.58 PM-Tom-Woods-responded

Read Full Post »

From the June 3, 2014 Toronto Star article, NRA criticizes ‘open carry’ gun rallies as ‘downright weird’, my comment was chosen as an “Editor’s Pick”:

FauxCapitalist

American gun culture is not supposed to make sense to anyone else, and that’s because our country was never born in violent revolution, we have nothing like their Second Amendment, and we never had a civil war. When you consider those factors, American gun culture doesn’t seem so weird or objectionable anymore, from their unique context.

They likely chose it because it makes Canadians think American gun culture is an oddity, but my purpose was to put it in a valid and particular context what otherwise doesn’t make much sense to most Canadians from a Canadian context.

Here are some other comments I made:

FauxCapitalist

@Ymhos What part? About the ability to carry hand-guns, or the right to keep and bear arms at all? If you find the latter weird, then perhaps you find many of America’s defining cultural differences weird.

FauxCapitalist

@besiboo We’re talking about American history, not Canadian history. At the time it was written, in 1789, it meant muskets, since they were what was used in the Revolutionary War. If they meant only muskets, they would’ve said so.

FauxCapitalist

@whodat singer It says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” People have rights, not militias. The Second Amendment granted no rights. It recognized an existing natural right of self-defence with arms, and was specifically intended to apply only to the federal government, to protect against the kind of government tyranny by King George that Americans had recently fought and died combating.

FauxCapitalist

@wetsurfer Times change, but principles don’t change. The Second Amendment was intended to provide the capability for the last resort of violent resistance in the face of government tyranny once all other amendments and peaceful resorts failed. Slavery wasn’t justifiable, being armed, is. Read the late Russian Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, about how the Soviet terror could’ve been ended if only the people violently resisted before it was too late.

FauxCapitalist

@The Real Meatloaf The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Heller case, decided that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” protects an individual right outside of the Militia, and even Barack Obama has stated as much.

FauxCapitalist

@thainion There’s no expiration on the Amendment. The proper way to change the Constitution is by passing another amendment, as has been done 27 times.

FauxCapitalist

@mrestivo4u2 In those states that allow open carry, I can see why some do it, because it’s a right in those states, whereas concealed carry is treated as a privilege, and the Second Amendment is clear, that as far as the federal government is concerned, it has no power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

FauxCapitalist

The Columbine, Virgina Tech and Aurora Colorado shootings all took place in “gun-free” zones.

For more on guns, and the divide between Canada and the United States, see my articles:

1) Canada’s long-gun registry: a feel-good failure

2) “You’re not much of a libertarian” (for not signing my petition)

3) America’s are “gun crazy” and Canadians are disarmed?

4) The great Canadian-American gun divide

Read Full Post »

Animation of a spinning barber pole

From the November 15, 2012 Toronto Star article, Woman denied haircut goes to Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, in Canada’s largest newspaper, I posted the following comment:

“Private property rights

Why is a store owner required to do something on his own property against his will? It’s too bad that he’s challenging this on religious freedom, when it should be a matter of private property rights — to do with your own property as you wish, so long as you’re not depriving anyone else of their rights. And it’s not anyone’s right to get a haircut at a particular barber shop.

Nov 15, 2012 9:48 AM Agree (68) Disagree (22)”

After 13 hours, my comment is the 13th-highest-rated among over 600 comments. I’m pleasantly heartened to see the message of private property rights resonate with so many readers, given the false frame of the article in portraying it as a matter of gender equality vs. religious freedom.

Read Full Post »

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 619 other followers