Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Justin Benjamin
2,859 followers -
I creatively express myself using any resources at my disposal
I creatively express myself using any resources at my disposal

2,859 followers
About
Justin's posts

Post has attachment
Even before Ludwig von Mises created his oh-so-genius critique of socialist economies, many socialist theorists had already criticized centrally planned socialism for precisely the same reasons, and formulated their own versions of socialism in response. 

Post has attachment
When all the institutions of oppression and privilege are stripped away, the only truly free market is a socialist one. https://c4ss.org/content/28216

Post has attachment
We do not want more gentlemen. We want to end gender distinctions as oppressive and exploitative traditions which belong only in the pages of history.

Post has shared content
Portugal- they're doing it right!

Post has attachment
If a person was denied to work in Hooters because they are a guy, for example, this is not an act of discrimination against them, it is a categorical exclusion because they do not meet the criteria for a job. Similarly, if a child is refused the right to purchase a car, it is not discrimination based on age, but an exclusion based on a judgement regarding their lack of competence to drive a car. These are acceptable, discrimination is not. In the case of housing, if an apartment owner denies a man right to purchase shared housing because the woman is uncomfortable with co-ed housing, it is not discrimination, it is that men did not categorically meet her requirements for shared housing. 

In the case of the gay cake, there was nothing about the cake that required making it for a heterosexual couple. There was no formula for the cake that made it impossible or even difficult to make a cake unless it was for a man and woman. They were perfectly capable of making the cake, and actively discriminated against the gay couple as evidenced by their language in defense of their discrimination. If, for example, a particular church had sacred wording for a ceremony that required for it to be a man and woman, it would NOT be discrimination because the church only could conduct ceremonies that follow its particular marriage formula. However, if the church did not have a rigid formula that required specific wording, then it would be discrimination; that is the line that can be drawn between categorical exclusion and discrimination. 

You can't claim that a truly free market must have no force, then then advocate the enforcement of private property as the foundation of a free market. It's a contradiction in terms. The options that I see is either to not enforce everything and expect people to all automatically agree regarding the necessity of private property and the particular implementation of (which  find unrealistic, but I will entertain proposals to this end), or the elimination of private property as a meaningful entity beyond being a culturally and socially-driven institution like the family. 

I would prefer the latter was the case, as it was prior to the creation of the state. Families and communities could build their own unique systems of land management and determine their own systems of rights and delegation of powers and responsibility concerning land use and ownership. Some the property would be owned by individuals, some by families, communities, leaders, caretakers, etc.; people can choose voluntarily which communities if any they wish to participate in, and they are not forced at the barrel of a gun to comply for others' conceptions of property rights if they don't agree with them. 

I maintain that this ^ conception of private property rights, while I believe it to be ideal and reasonable, is not pragmatic or practical given the status quo conditions; however, it would be the closest thing to a truly voluntary society, as I'm sure. What private property rights proponents propose is a one-size-fits all system where everyone respects the institution of private property rights, and more specifically what others may agree to be private property rights, is quite the opposite of voluntaryism, as it coerces some to buy into the same set of rules of life, labor, and resource management as others.

In this sense, private property rights as advocates envision is collectivist, and no less coercive and violent than the state. If you truly wish for a free market and voluntary society, you must abandon the false dichotomy of "private property rights or no rights at all" and recognize that rights are very complex and diverse and everyone has the right to decide which institutions they wish to participate in and the particular implementation thereof. Only by abandoning this coercive requirement that everyone participate in private property rights and allow everyone to freely choose which system of land and labor management to support, can people truly call themselves advocates of liberty and the free market. 

Post has attachment
I finally found a full Armenian wedding video. Does anyone have any idea how difficult this is for someone who barely speaks any Armenian to find an authentic Armenian wedding video? Now, finally I have a good depiction of an Armenian wedding so I know what to prepare myself for! 

Post has shared content
Anyone who thinks the purpose of the constitution was to limit government must have their intellectual head up their ass. The purpose of the constitution was to EMPOWER the Federal government and TAKE POWER AWAY from the states and individuals they governed. The Bill of Rights was a series of amendments to the constitution lobbied for by anti-Federalists who felt the constitution gave the government too much power. Yet "constitutionalists" like Rand Paul continue to propagate the myth that the constitution limits government!
Wait while more posts are being loaded