Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
5,382 followers
5,382 followers
About
Zephyr's posts

Post has attachment
"The Question of Scholarships"

«Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.

It does not matter, in this context, whether a given individual has or has not paid an amount of taxes equal to the amount of the scholarship he accepts. First, the sum of his individual losses cannot be computed; this is part of the welfare.state philosophy, which treats everyone's income as public property. Second, if he has reached college age, he has undoubtedly paid—in hidden taxes—much more that the amount of the scholarship. Or, if his parents cannot afford to pay for his education, consider what taxes they have paid, directly or indirectly, during the twenty years of his life—and you will see that a scholarship is too pitifully small even to be called an restitution.

Third—and most important—the young people of today are not responsible for the immoral state of the world into which they were born. Those who accept the welfare-statist ideology assume their share of the guilt when they do so. But the anti-collectivists are innocent victims who face an impossible situation: it is welfare statism that has almost destroyed the possibility of working one's way through college. It was difficult but possible some decades ago; today, it has become a process of close-to-human torture. There are virtually no part-time jobs that pay enough to support oneself while going to school; the alternative is to hold a full-time job and to attend classes at night—which takes eight years of unrelenting twelve-to-sixteen-hour days, for a four-year college course. If those responsible for such conditions offer the victim a scholarship, his right to take it is incontestable—and it is too pitifully small an amount even to register on the scales of justice, when one considers all the other, the nonmaterial, nonamendable injuries he has suffered.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.»

— Ayn Rand. "The Question of Scholarships." The Objectivist (June 1966) no. 11
https://books.google.com/books?id=OsCSArJxIRwC&pg=PT47
Excerpt: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html

• Onkar Ghate. "The Myth about Ayn Rand and Social Security." Ayn Rand Institute (June 19, 2014)
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/The-Myth-about-Ayn-Rand-and-Social-Security

• Chris Matthew Sciabarra. "Ayn Rand, David Cross, and Hypocrisy." Dialectics & Liberty (Notablog), New York University (August 17, 2016)
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/002157.html

"Quien roba a un ladrón, tiene cien años de perdón"
http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/refranero/ficha.aspx?Par=59463&Lng=0
_______

URL G+ post source comment:
plus.google.com/109944400408185420304/posts/4J6NqLzGMCG

Post has attachment
Unenlightened commie: "How do you protect your private property?"

+4th Dimension: "This needed reposting"

— But apparently it doesn't "need" to be answered, since you keep deleting my replies. The first sign of fanaticism is the urge to prevent one's dogma from being challenged:

Benjamin R Tucker:

«There is a tacit agreement or understanding between human beings, not as brothers,—and I do not think that Miss Kelly intended to use the word "brothers" in any sentimental sense,—but as individuals living in daily contact and dependent upon some sort of cooperation with each other for the satisfaction of their daily wants, not to trespass upon each other's individuality, the motive of this agreement being the purely egoist desire of each for the peaceful preservation of his own individuality. Now it is true that, while almost all men recognize in the abstract the binding force of this agreement, the great majority of them either wilfully violate it, believing themselves strong enough to do so with impunity and with benefit to themselves, or ignorantly violate it through mistaken and superstitious ideas about religion, morality, and duty, and so commit trespass upon the individualities of others.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. "Comment on: 'What Is Justice?" Liberty (March 6, 1886) vol. 3 no. 25 (whole no. 77) p. 8 [document no. 454]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2778

Cited by Wendy McElroy here:

• Wendy McElroy. "The Non-Absurdity of Natural Law: One Can Disagree with Natural Rights without Declaring the Concept Nonsensical." Foundation for Economic Education (February 1, 1998)
https://fee.org/articles/the-non-absurdity-of-natural-law

• Wendy McElroy. "Benjamin Tucker, Liberty And Individualist Anarchism." The Independent Review (Winter 1998) vol. 2 no. 3 pp. 421–434 ISSN 1086-1653 (1997)
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_02_3_mcelroy.pdf
http://wendymcelroy.com/tir1.htm
http://wendymcelroy.com/tir2.htm

Benjamin R Tucker:

«Mr. Byington’s erroneous conclusions regarding the confiscation of economic rent are due, as I view it, to his confusion of liberties with rights, or, perhaps I might better say, to his foundation of equality of liberty upon a supposed equality of rights. I take issue with him at the very start by denying the dogma of equality of rights,—in fact, by denying rights altogether except those acquired by contract. In times past, when, though already an Egoist and knowing then as now that every man acts and always will act solely from an interest in self, I had not considered the bearing of Egoism upon the question of obligation, it was my habit to talk glibly and loosely of the right of man to the land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man’s only right over the land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor’s until the latter is dispossessed in turn by one mightier still. But while the danger of such dispossession continues there is no society, no security, no comfort. Hence men contract. They agree upon certain conditions of land ownership, and will protect no title in the absence of the conditions fixed upon. The object of this contract is not to enable all to benefit equally from the land, but to enable each to hold securely at his own disposal the results of his efforts expended upon such portion of the earth as he may possess under the conditions agreed upon. It is principally to secure this absolute control of the results of one’s effort that equality of liberty is instituted, not as a matter of right, but as a social convenience. I have always maintained that liberty is of greater importance than wealth,—in other words, that man derives more happiness from freedom than from luxury,—and this is true; but there is another sense in which wealth, or rather property, is of greater importance than liberty. Man has but little to gain from liberty unless that liberty includes the liberty to control what he produces. One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the régime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. "Liberty and Property." Liberty (December 31, 1892) vol. 9 no. 18 (whole no. 252) pp. 3-4 [document no. 1591-1592]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/liberty-and-property
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n367/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2939

«If this, then, were a question of right, it would be, according to the Anarchists, purely a question of strength. But, fortunately, it is not a question of right: it is a question of expediency, of knowledge, of science,—the science of living together, the science of society. The history of humanity has been largely one long and gradual discovery of the fact that the individual is the gainer by society exactly in proportion as society is free, and of the law that the condition of a permanent and harmonious society is the greatest amount of individual liberty compatible with equality of liberty. The average man of each new generation has said to himself more clearly and consciously than his predecessor: My neighbor is not my enemy, but my friend, and I am his, if we would but mutually recognize the fact. We help each other to a better, fuller, happier living; and this service might be greatly increased if we would cease to restrict, hamper, and oppress each other. Why can we not agree to let each live his own life, neither of us transgressing the limit that separates our individualities? It is by this reasoning that mankind is approaching the real social contract, which is not, as Rousseau thought, the origin of society, but rather the outcome of a long social experience, the fruit of its follies and disasters. It is obvious that this contract, this social law, developed to its perfection, excludes all aggression, all violation of equality of liberty, all invasion of every kind. Considering this contract in connection with the Anarchistic definition of the State as the embodiment of the principle of invasion, we see that the State is antagonistic to society; and, society being essential to individual life and development, the conclusion leaps to the eyes that the relation of the State to the individual and of the individual to the State must be one of hostility, enduring till the State shall perish.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. "Relation of the State to the Individual." Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 no. 15 (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866

«But he must prove it. His proposition is not an axiom; it is open to dispute. Its mere assertion does not establish it; no more is it established by spelling Natural Right with a big N and a big R. Mr. Lloyd must marshal his evidence. If he does not do so, I claim the floor and maintain that it is not right—that is, best—to guarantee equal liberty to all human beings, for the reason that such a guarantee is inconsistent with the one purpose common to all the contracting parties—namely, the security of each of them in the control of their persons and the results of their efforts,—and that to the accomplishment of this purpose the necessary thing is a guarantee of equal liberty to all persons capable of entertaining the idea of contract. And in support of this contention I offer in detail the various considerations which I have urged in my articles upon this subject.
[…]
So far Mr. Lloyd has backed his denial of the contract régime by only one argument,—that society cannot be founded upon contract because no individual is under any obligation to keep his contract, and therefore it is obligatory upon his fellows to refrain from enforcing the contract upon him. The final inference is unwarrantable. It is the contrary, rather, that follows. There is no moral obligation upon the individual either to make a contract, or to keep a contract after making it; and, similarly, there is no moral obligation upon his fellows, with whom he may have made a contract, to allow him to repudiate the contract. There is no moral obligation at all on either side. A contract is made voluntarily, for mutual advantage. For its violation penalties are fixed. If a contracting party chooses to violate, he suffers these penalties, provided the other parties have the desire and power to enforce them. And that is all there is to it. Such an arrangement is shown by experience to be practicable. Therefore a society can be founded upon it. Not a true society, says Mr. Lloyd. As to that, I don’t know. At any rate, a society that accomplishes its purpose.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. "Rights and Contract." Liberty (December 14, 1895) vol. 11 no. 16 (whole no. 328) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2134-2135]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/12/14/rights-and-contract
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3016

«But Herr Most asks me, if respect for private property is conceivable without a State, why is not Communism so conceivable? Simply because the only force ever necessary to secure respect for private property is the force of defence,—the force which protects the laborer in the possession of his product or in the free exchange thereof,—while the force required to secure Communism is the force of offence,—the force which compels the laborer to pool his product with the products of all and forbids him to sell his labor or his product. Now, force of offence is the principle of the State, while force of defence is one aspect of the principle of liberty. This is the reason why private property does not imply a State, while Communism does.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. "Still Avoiding the Issue." Liberty (May 12, 1888) vol. 5 no. 20 (whole no. 124) p.4 [document 824]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/still-avoiding-the-issue
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n415/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2825

• Benjamin R Tucker. "What Is Property?" Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) pp. 4-5, 8 [document no. 2086-2087, 2090]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/what-is-property
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010

• Benjamin R Tucker. "What Is Property?" Liberty (October 5, 1895) vol. 11 no. 11 (whole no. 323) pp. 3-4 [document no. 2093-2094, 2090]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/10/05/what-is-property
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3011

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Attacked Because We Do Not Know It All." Liberty (February 1997) vol. 12 no. 12 (whole no. 350) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2310-2311]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3039

Kal Molinet:

"No, again, all rights are mutual agreements you have with one another. Now, I respect that you can do whatever you want with your body and with your property to grant me the same courtesy to do the same, right? with my own body and with my own property. You have a lot of these rights in community agreements, in contracts that you signed, in the community of free society that caters to lifestyle preference,… and that's pretty much what rights are, you know? You don't have any rights, you have private property, and in there you have the rules that you give consent to. You can call those your rights but within competing societies there would be an underlying respect for self-ownership, for respect for voluntary exchange."
[At 1:27]

— Kal Molinet. "Enemy Of Liberty: Austin Petersen." Liberate RVA (May 13, 2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKN-GuBRUY [29 min]
https://plus.google.com/+LiberateRVA/posts/ahGcmGZhrqZ
_____

URL G+ post source comment:
plus.google.com/109987034260044904311/posts/gGybjoDuwKE

URL related G+ post:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/93pD9pzsyK5

Post has attachment
Autonomous / Self Driving Cars

Gerd Moe-Behrens Jun 15, 5:02 PM
Human drivers do not want to hand the wheel to robots - self driving cars are a disaster - the future is car automation under control of the individual driver
https://bloom.bg/2rvoKqz

• Keith Naughton. "Human Drivers Are Afraid to Hand the Wheel to Robots." Bloomberg (2017 M06 15)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/autonomous-cars-biggest-roadblock-are-drivers-afraid-to-let-go
_____

Zephyr López Cervilla
«When the first steam powered cars (or locomotives as they were then called) first took to the roads in the early 1860’s it was feared that engines and their trailers might endanger the safety of the public, cause fatal accidents, block narrow lanes, and disturb the locals by operating at night. Many complained the cars were scaring the horses meanwhile the farmers were shooting the cars!

To allay the concerns, restrictions and speed limits were imposed by the Locomotive Act of 1865 (more popularly known as the “Red Flag Act“) which required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6.4 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3.2 km/h) in the city – as well as requiring a man carrying a red flag or lantern to walk in front of road vehicles. The Act also included such matters as “Damage caused by locomotives to bridges to be made good by the vehicle owners.” However it was soon discovered that the steam carriages’ brakes and their wide tyres caused less damage to the roads than horse-drawn carriages because of the absence of horses’ hooves striking the road and wheels which did not lock and drag as they did on horse drawn carriages.

In the latter part of the 1800’s the British Motor Syndicate began a public relations campaign to lobby for the repeal of the Locomotive Act, which was declared the main obstacle to wider adoption of the car in Britain. The Act of 1865 was repealed in 1896.

Almost 120 years later we stand at the precipice of a new dawn in the age of the automobile – self-driving cars. Everything, from how we move goods to how we move ourselves around, is ripe for change.

Self-driving cars will require legislators to make new amendments to the current Highways Acts in place. There is already considerable debate surrounding the legal issues of driverless cars, the ethical concerns and questions over the liability of who to sue when a driverless car is involved in an accident.

Nevertheless the case for self-driving cars is considerable, the death toll (from motor accidents) is increasing worldwide with 1.3 million fatalities and 50 million injuries every year globally and around 93% of these accidents are caused by human error, and cost a staggering US$ 871 billion in the United States alone, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – self-driving cars will dramatically reduce accidents significantly. Autonomous cars will also reduce the burden on law enforcement, may also make streets safer and less congested, and allow those with disability greater movement – leading to a cleaner environment and improved quality of life.»

— Colin W Lewis. "Lloyds of London report – how self driving cars will affect the insurance industry." RobotEnomics (July 25, 2014)
https://robotenomics.com/2014/07/25/lloyds-insurance-report-overcoming-obstacles-for-driverless-cars

«There is nothing new under the sun. When incumbent industries are threatened by a new and disruptive technology, they will use any justification imaginable to kill it in its infancy, trying to convince legislators that their particular special interest is a public interest. It always ends badly.

In the second half of the 1800s, cars started appearing in Western Europe. At first, they were powered by steam engines, and later by various liquid fuels. We’re currently seeing a rerun of the political game surrounding that development.

As industries become threatened by new technology, they typically embrace it in public and talk passionately about its potential, but only in terms of how the new technology can support the existing industries. Under absolutely no circumstances must the new technology be allowed to come into a position to replace the existing industries.

A famous example of this is the Locomotives Act of 1865 in the United Kingdom, better known as the Red Flag Act. It was a law that limited the speed of the new so-called automobile to 2 miles per hour in urban areas, and required them to always have a crew of three: a driver, a stoker (!), and a man who would walk before the automobile waving a red flag (!!).

The car was fantastic, but only as long as it didn’t threaten the railroad or stagecoach industries.

These industries, it turned out much later, were behind the lobbying that led to the Red Flag Act. The fledgling automobile industry stood to make the older industries obsolete, or at least significantly smaller, which could not be permitted. Therefore, they went to Parliament and argued how tremendously important their industries were, and claimed that their special interest was a public interest. Just like the copyright lobby does today.»

— Rick Falkvinge. "The Red Flag Act of 1865." TorrentFreak (June 26, 2011)
https://torrentfreak.com/the-red-flag-act-of-1865-110626

"Michelin tyres and a higher speed limit gave new impetus to the first motor cars." Look and Learn (2 October 1971) no. 507 (online: 13 January 2014)
http://www.lookandlearn.com/blog/29522/michelin-tyres-and-a-higher-speed-limit-gave-new-impetus-to-the-first-motor-cars

"Locomotive Acts." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts

"Red flag traffic laws." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
_____

Gerd Moe-Behrens
Self driving cars heave concept failed. The discussion is not about fear, but about a bad technology. The future is car automation under the control of the individual driver. Nobody wants self driving cars. Nobody wants to give up their freedom of movement and let a huge company and their selfish interests take over. Company driven cars are nothing but a technological dictatorship. Self driving cars are not safe at all. The human flaw is moved from the human driver to the human programmer. The board computer can have systemic coding flaws and can be hacked. This can potentially lead to mass accidents of unseen proportions. Thus we need a human driver, who at least in case of emergency can take over the car. Thus the future is car automation (for safety features) under the control of the individual human driver.
_____

URL G+ post 1 source comments:
plus.google.com/+LeukipposInstitute/posts/iRyEDp68uP2
____________

Gerd Moe-Behrens
Wrong - this is killing competition and generates monopoly who inhibit startups to grow. Moreover, Musk is a dreamer and is executing his business very bad. One example is Tesla. Self driving cars are not the future. His concepts illustrate us how bad his judgement is in respect to future technology. The future is car automation under the control of the individual driver. It is not the job of the tax payer to fund a dreamer, who is a bad CEO!
_____

Gerd Moe-Behrens
Great to see Musk leaving Washington. He was there to push his self driving car agenda and to get more tax money. As he has so bad judgement, he is a very bad adviser and it is good that he can not do more harm with bad advises to politicians in Washington!
_____

Zephyr López Cervilla
Why do you think "the future" is people driving their own cars (basically, like in the past) when cars can drive themselves? What about autonomous trucks? Why the need of hiring a costly truck driver when the truck could drive itself and wouldn't need rest times nor sleep?
_____

Gerd Moe-Behrens
+Zephyr López Cervilla It is bad entrepreneurship, as there the total market size for this technology is to small in order to make it a viable business. The majority of people do not want self driving cars. Nobody wants to give up their freedom of movement and let a huge company and their selfish interests take over. Company driven cars are nothing but a technological dictatorship. Self driving cars are not safe at all. The human flaw is moved from the human driver to the human programmer. The board computer can have systemic coding flaws and can be hacked. This can potentially lead to mass accidents of unseen proportions. Thus we need a human driver, who at least in case of emergency can take over the car. Thus the future is car automation (for safety features) under the control of the individual human driver. We will avoid mass unemployment, if we outlaw autonomous systems and demand human control. Finally, it is. asocial decision. We should not build everything, what is technical possible. We need a human centric society. Thus we needs a human controlled technology. The future I human computer interaction and the use of the best from two worlds. I ma convinced that autonomous systems will commercially fail and human controlled automated systems win the race.
_____

Zephyr López Cervilla
+Gerd Moe-Behrens, none of your arguments is convincing at all, especially the one about avoiding mass unemployment. In the Middle ages there was full employment, nonetheless, most people couldn't even afford lighting their homes.
_____

Gerd Moe-Behrens
+Zephyr López Cervilla this is just a subjective statement by you and not an evidence based one. You are wrong: e.g. the problem of hacking: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3121999/security/researchers-demonstrate-remote-attack-against-tesla-model-s.html http://keenlab.tencent.com/en/2016/09/19/Keen-Security-Lab-of-Tencent-Car-Hacking-Research-Remote-Attack-to-Tesla-Cars/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1XyhReNcHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jQAX4540hA
http://bit.ly/2igYCKh
Read also MIT tech review https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602292/top-safety-official-doesnt-trust-automakers-to-teach-ethics-to-self-driving-cars

Do not be naive. All computer systems can fail and can be hacked. In the case of self driving cars can this in the wrong ands leads to mass killing of unseen dimensions.
We need a driver to take over the car in case of problems.

Musk is making a major conceptual mistake.

The future is obvious an automated system, which can be controlled by the individual driver.

Musk business will end in bankruptcy.

Mass unemployment is self evident, if you take in consideration how many people life of commercial driving (trucks, taxis etc).

Moreover, the question about what kind of society we wish is not one of right and wrong, but about what axioms we are setting. Do we wish a socialistic dictatorship or a society of free individuals. Self driving cars is about to take free movement form the individual and put it under the control of a small elite (large companies and the government). Th majority of the population will not accept this. All forms of socialism have always failed. The argument to give up your individual freedom for safety is old leftist rhetoric. It fails as you will become a slave in such a system and slaves does not have freedom.
_____

URL G+ post 2 source comments:
plus.google.com/+LeukipposInstitute/posts/gkNS2tN7Rut
____________

URL related G+ posts:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/dycD8VPRN4C
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Ng6Nxr3uuRB
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/9uEiaPmnEqC
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/7TgKHukMdtd

plus.google.com/116017061364727182937/posts/6jcn4pYaPC5
plus.google.com/+reasonmagazine/posts/263zt8EtyLX
plus.google.com/+RiddedYousuf/posts/Wabzbxojivm
plus.google.com/+AlisonMarlowe/posts/34dC8zC4JPb
plus.google.com/+Cool-electric-cars/posts/JRdky2N7ziy 

Post has attachment
Tyrannicide

Funny stuff:

John Feather Being Liberal Community on G+ Jun 14, 2017
I often hear conservatives clamor about how is was the Republican party who freed the slaves. While technically true, their argument does not account for the fact, the parties reversed rolls following the civil war.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vjk2z9ZWZtw/WUGi29D2FGI/AAAAAAAAFGo/nO-N9InjFDoKR1cdIFHaiYKG3_ntQq5QACJoC/w795-h428-p-rw/650px-1860_Electoral_Map%2B%25281%2529.png
_____

John Feather
livescience.com - Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
_____

perry farmer
+John Feather​ This also applies to state legislators but for most states at a slower pace. The northern states moving towards Democrats on a gradual but consistent pace since about 1940. The southern states right about 1964 started moving Republican.
https://get.google.com/u/0/albumarchive/117831659097119978533/album/AF1QipOP16f3FPhtfkV2KZyyM9-nQMO4htjGl2ch4sPB/AF1QipM7jVXKgU-frJyIkg6erEv7bIzurXu5SXkw4kbt
_____

perry farmer
+John Feather
Shift in state legislators... Note what occurs about 1964. Southern states become more Republican. Northern states continued trend towards more democratic starting about 1940.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/11/49-charts-that-tell-the-partisan-history-of-state-legislatures

Use drop down near bottom of page to select individual states as other charts show combined statistics. 
_____

Zephyr López Cervilla
Abraham Lincoln was a genocidal despotic tyrant who didn't give a shit about the slaves:

«The following is a sampling of Lincoln’s racist and white supremacist beliefs (“CW” stands for Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, followed by the volume and page numbers):

“Free them [black slaves] and make them politically and socially our equal? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (CW, 2, 256). “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races.” (CW, 2, 405). “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” (CW, 2, 521). “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge [Stephen] Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position.” (CW, 2, 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” (CW, 3, 145-146). “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [i.e., Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.” (CW, 3, 146). “Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for Negroes. Why, in point of fact, I think so too.” (CW, 2, 281).

As proven in the book, Colonization After Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page (University of Missouri Press), Lincoln plotted and schemed to deport all black people out of the country – so-called “colonization” – until his dying day. He even had his secretary of state, William Seward, hard at work figuring out how many ships it would take, and negotiating with foreign governments about land purchases where the former American black people could be dumped. “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation,” he declared, and “such separation . . . must be affected by colonization.” (CW, 2, 409). “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime [i.e., Africa], he said (CW, 2, 409). “The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (CW, 5, 373-374).»

— Thomas DiLorenzo. "Tear Down That Monument!: A “Progressive” Case for Demolishing the Lincoln Memorial." LewRockwell.com (July 8, 2015)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/thomas-dilorenzo/tear-down-that-monument

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Real Lincoln in His Own Words." LewRockwell.com (June 5, 2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo257.html

«• He was a consummate politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.
• He was adamantly opposed to racial equality, actually using the words "superior and inferior" to describe the "appropriate" relation between the white and black races.
• He opposed giving blacks the right to vote, to serve on juries, or to intermarry with whites.
• He supported the legal rights of slave owners and pledged his support of a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.
• He was a mercantilist and a political tool of corrupt Northern business interests.
• He was a railroad industry lobbyist who championed corporate welfare.
• He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained their freedom.
• He advocated sending all blacks back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti — anywhere but the U.S.
• He proposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law.
• He opposed the extension of slavery into the territories so that "free white people" would not have to associate with blacks or compete with them for jobs.
• He opposed black citizenship in Illinois and supported the state's constitution which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state.
• He was the head of the Illinois Colonization Society, which advocated the use of state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that resided within the state.
• He nullified the early emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.
• He sent troops to New York City to put down a draft riot by shooting hundreds of them in the streets.
• He was an enemy of free-market capitalism.
• He started a war over tax collection that ended up killing 620,000 Americans and wounding and maiming even more.
• He conjured up the spectacular lie that no such thing as state sovereignty ever existed to "justify" his invasion and conquest of the Southern states.
• He refused to meet with Confederate peace commissioners before the war to work out a peaceful compromise.
• He provoked the upper South — Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee — to secede by launching a military invasion of their sister states.
• He supported economic interventionism through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and central banking that would plunder one section of the country (the South) for the benefit of his Northern political supporters.
• He started a war without the consent of Congress; illegally declared martial law; illegally blockaded Southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; confiscated private property, including firearms; ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; tolerated the arrest of ministers who refused to publicly pray for him; arrested duly elected members of the Maryland legislature as well as Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and supported a law that indemnified federal officials from all of these illegal acts.
• He orchestrated the rigging of Northern elections.
• Introduced the slavery of conscription and income taxation.
• Censored all telegraph communication.
• Waged war on civilians by having his armies bomb Southern cities and destroy or steal crops, livestock and private property throughout the South.
• Created an enormous political patronage system that survives today.
• Allowed the unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.
• Destroyed the system of federalism and states' rights that was created by the founding fathers, thereby destroying the voluntary union.
• Promoted generals for their willingness to use troops as cannon fodder.
• Created an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size and power.»

— Thomas J DiLorenzo. "'The Weekly Standard' Feigns Objectivity." LewRockwell.com (December 29, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo56.html

Further reading:
https://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/d9WBPcszZRG
_____

Arthur Walsh
+Zephyr López Cervilla Your comments regarding President Lincoln parrot the opinions of those who plotted his assassination. We know what happened to them.
_____

John Doe
+Christopher Poff Abraham Lincoln is one of the most well known and praised right-winged leaders.
Zephyr is obviously not right-winged.
_____

Zephyr López Cervilla
+Arthur Walsh: "Your comments regarding President Lincoln parrot the opinions of those who plotted his assassination."

— Surprising! That may well even explain why they wanted to kill him.

+Arthur Walsh: "We know what happened to them."

— We all know what happened to Abe Lincoln:
britannica.com - tyrannicide
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyrannicide
_____

Arthur Walsh
+Zephyr López Cervilla I reported you for hate speech. You are a total scumbag.
_____

Zephyr López Cervilla
+Arthur Walsh: "+Zephyr López Cervilla I reported you for hate speech. You are a total scumbag."

— Good, I'll take it as a compliment:

«Ad hominem attacks are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.
[…]
Tip: When others verbally attack you, take it as a compliment to the quality of your argument. It is usually a sign of desperation on their part.»

— Bo Bennett. "Ad Hominem (Abusive)." Logically Fallacious
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

«Do you remember the time you changed a stranger’s political opinion on the Internet by using your logic and your accurate data?
Probably not. Because that rarely happens. If you were paying attention during the past year, you learned facts don’t matter to our decisions. We think they do, but they don’t. At least not for topics in which we are emotionally invested, such as politics. (Obviously facts do matter to the outcomes. But not to decisions.)

So how do you win a political debate on the Internet when people refuse to change their opinions? I propose the Cognitive Dissonance test. If you can trigger your opponent into cognitive dissonance, you win. That’s usually as far as a political debate can go. Generally, you can’t change people’s minds, but you can back them into a corner and make them show a “tell” for cognitive dissonance. That’s essentially a white flag that says, “I have no logical argument, so I will say something ridiculous and act as though it is not.”

The problem with cognitive dissonance is that it can be hard to know whether your opponent is experiencing it or you are. It looks exactly the same to you. The person in the illusion can’t tell the difference. You need some sort of simple and objective sign to know when cognitive dissonance is in play and which one of you is experiencing it. And I have just that.

You can detect cognitive dissonance by the following tells:
[…]
Attack the Messenger
When people realize their arguments are not irrational, they attack the messenger on the other side. If you have been well-behaved in a debate, and you trigger an oversized personal attack, it means you won. When people have facts and reasons in their armory, they use them first. When they run out of rational arguments, they attack the messenger. That is the equivalent of throwing the gun at the monster after you run out of bullets.»

— Scott Adams. "How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet." Scott Adams' Blog (May 15, 2017)
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160696999931
_____

Greg “Basically Thermite” S
Scott Adams is a bit of a douchebag, but I can't gainsay his suggestion here. It certainly seems to work from where I'm sitting :-D XD
_____

URL G+ post source comments:
http://plus.google.com/104727957225182652034/posts/dx2os3yzWm8

Post has attachment
Land Mammal Biomass

[pp. 185-187] «Earthworms are the most conspicuous soil invertebrates. Darwin (1881) thought that “it may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures” (p. 316), but their mass is usually just around 5 g/m2 (fig. 7.1). Only in cultivated soils may there be well over 10 g/m2 (Edwards and Lofty 1972; Hartenstein 1986). Inconspicuous or microscopic nematodes average about a tenth of annelid biomass, and ants and termites each add typically no more than 0.1 g/m2 (Brian 1978). The most common range for invertebrates may be 7–10 g/m2: their global biomass, dominated by annelids, nematodes, and microarthropods, would then be between 400 and 550 Mt C (appendix F).

Reptiles and amphibians often dominate vertebrate zoomass in tropical forests, where their biomass density may rival that of invertebrates (Reagan and Waide 1996). Only in the richest savannas supporting large numbers of ungulates will the average density of mammals surpass 2 g/m2; in contrast, the biomass of animals in equatorial and montane rainforests and in temperate woodlands is below 1 g/m2 (Prins and Reitsma 1989; Plumptree and Harris 1995). Small mammals, mostly rodents, add generally less than 0.2 g/m2, and the zoomasses of insectivorous mammals are mostly below 0.05 g/m2 (Golley et al. 1975). The total for all carnivores in the Ngorongoro Crater, one of the world’s best habitats for large predators to hunt ungulates, is less than 0.03 g/m2 (Schaller 1972). Similarly, total avifaunas usually do not surpass 0.05 g/m2 (Edmonds 1974; Reagan and Waide 1996).

In aggregate, vertebrate zoomass rarely sums to more than 1 g/m2 over large areas, and uncertainties in its quantification thus hardly matter in the overall biospheric count: errors inherent in estimating prokaryotic biomass are easily an order of magnitude larger. Published estimates of terrestrial invertebrate and vertebrate biomass range between 500 and 1,000 Mt C, with wild mammals contributing less than 5 Mt C (Bowen 1966; Whittaker and Likens 1973; Smil 1991). Vertebrate zoomass also includes domestic animals, whose biomass is dominated by bovines (about 1.5 billion heads of cattle and water buffaloes), and calculations based on Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2000) animal counts and on conservative averages of their live weights result in 100–120 Mt C, or at least twenty times the wild mammalian total (appendix F; fig. 7.2).

The great depth of the inhabited medium and the extraordinary patchiness and mobility of many oceanic heterotrophs make the quantification of marine zoomass exceedingly difficult. Published estimates range from 300 to 500 Mt C, with invertebrates dominant and mammals contributing no more than 5% of the total (appendix F). Mann (1984) estimated total fish biomass at 300 Mt of fresh weight, or less than 40 Mt C. I have used conservative population estimates for all major whale species (IWC 2001) to put their global live mass at no more than 80 Mt, or about 15 Mt C. Even the highest combined estimate of terrestrial and oceanic values means that the global zoomass adds up to less than 0.3% of standing phytomass.

The lower average body mass and a higher share of children in populations of low-income countries mean that that the weighted global mean of human body mass is only about 45 kg per capita. Consequently, at the beginning of 2000, the global anthropomass of just over six billion people amounted to about 270 Mt of live weight contain- ing approximately 40 Mt C (appendix F). My best estimate is that at the beginning of the twentieth century, the zoomass of wild mammals was at least as large as the anthropomass of 1.6 billion humans (Smil 1991), but by 2000, human biomass was an order of magnitude larger!

The global average of human density for ice-free land is not a very meaningful measure. Cultivated area is the proper denominator: it now supplies about 85% of all food, and the global anthropomass (live weight) now amounts to almost 200 kg/ha of arable land and permanent plantations; China’s mean is almost 500 kg/ha, and the country’s most intensively cultivated provinces sup- port 600–700 kg of humanity per hectare of arable land. This means that in densely populated regions, human biomass is now more abundant than that of all soil invertebrates. In contrast, the average densities of the two large African primates, chimpanzees and gorillas, are mostly less than 1 kg/ha of their now so limited (and disappearing) habitats (Bernstein and Smith 1979; Prins and Reitsma 1989; Harcourt 1996). These comparisons demonstrate impressively the relentless ascent of the most adaptable as well as the most destructive of all heterotrophic species (fig. 7.3).
[…]
[p. 186] 7.2 The zoomass of domesticated land animals, dominated by cattle, is now at least twenty times larger than the zoomass of all wild vertebrates. Based on data in the text.
[…]
[p. 284] Appendix F
Estimates of the Biosphere’s Heterotrophic Biomass
–––––
Organisms | Biomass estimates (Mt C)
–––––
Prokaryotes
Soils | 15,000–26,000
Waters | 1,500–13,700
Subterranean | 22,000–215,000
Subsea | ?–303,000
Land
Fungi | 3,000–6,000
Invertebrates | 400–1,000
Wild vertebrates | < 5
Elephants | 0.1
Domesticated vertebrates | 100–120
Humans | 40
Ocean
Invertebrates | 300–500
Fish | < 40
Whales | 5–15
–––––
Sources: Bowen (1966); Bogorov (1969); Whittaker and Likens (1973); Hinga (1979); Romankevich (1988); Smil (1991); Whitman et al. (1998); Wilhelm and Suttle (1999); and my new calculations based on the latest population estimates for elephants and whales collated, respectively, by the IUCN (2001) and by the IWC (2001).
[…]
[pp. 289-328] REFERENCES
[…]
Bogorov, V. G. 1969. Zhizn’ okeana (Life of the Ocean). Moscow: Znaniye.

Bowen, H. J. M. 1966. Trace Elements in Biochemistry. New York: Academic.

Hinga, K. R. 1979. The food requirement of whales in the southern hemisphere. Deep Sea Research 26:569–577.

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2001. Continental overview of elephant estimates. < http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/aed/products/continen/contable.htm >.

IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2001. Whale population estimates. < http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/iwcoffice/Estimate.htm >.

Romankevich, E. A. 1988. Living matter of the Earth. Geokhimiya 2:292–306.

Smil, V. 1991. General Energetics. New York: John Wiley.

Whitman, W. B., D.C. Coleman, and W. J. Wiebe. 1998. Prokaryotes: The unseen majority. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:6578–6583.

Whittaker, R. H., and G. E. Likens. 1973. Carbon in the biota. In Carbon and the Biosphere, ed. G. M. Woodwell and E. V. Pecan, 281–300. Washington, DC: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

Wilhelm, S. W., and C. A. Suttle. 1999. Viruses and nutrient cycles in the sea. BioScience 49:781–788.»

— Vaclav Smil. ”The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change.” MIT Press (2002)
http://www.univpgri-palembang.ac.id/perpus-fkip/Perpustakaan/Geography/Geografi%20Fisik/Biosphere%20Bumi.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=8ntHWPMUgpMC
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262194724
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262692988
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MG7E5ZG

Further reading:

• Randall Munroe. “Land Mammals.” Comic #1338, xkcd.com (March 5, 2014)
https://xkcd.com/1338

“1338: Land Mammals.” explainxkcd.com (March 5, 2014)
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1338:_Land_Mammals

• ctesibius. ”Mass of humans vs wild animals: is XKCD correct?” AskScienceDiscussion, Reddit,com (March 6, 2014)
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zple1/mass_of_humans_vs_wild_animals_is_xkcd_correct

“Biomass (ecology): Global biomass.” Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#Global_biomass

• RJ Blakemore. “Darwin’s win-win for Global Worming?” Vermecology (12 February 2017)
https://vermecology.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/nature-article-to-commemorate-charles-darwins-birthday-on-12th-feb

• Charles R Darwin. “The formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms, with observations on their habits.” John Murray (London; 1881)
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1357&viewtype=side

• Bill Chapell. “Along With Humans, Who Else Is In The 7 Billion Club?” The Two-Way, NPR (November 3, 2011)
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/11/03/141946751/along-with-humans-who-else-is-in-the-7-billion-club

• Rex Weyler. “The Ninth Extinction.” Making Waves, Greenpeace International (13 August, 2015)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/the-ninth-extinction/blog/53729

• Kevin MacFarlane. “Human vs Livestock vs Wild mammal biomass on Earth Human vs Livestock vs Wild mammal biomass on Earth.” Kalahari Lion Research (January 16, 2015)
http://www.kalaharilionresearch.org/2015/01/16/human-vs-livestock-vs-wild-mammal-biomass-earth

“Lists of mammals by population.” Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_mammals_by_population

“Lists of organisms by population.” Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_organisms_by_population

• Nic Fleming. “Which life form dominates Earth?: Which organism has had the biggest impact on the planet?” Earth, BBC (10 February 2015)
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150211-whats-the-most-dominant-life-form

• Peter Brannen. «Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction: “As scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”» The Atlantic (June 13, 2017)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the-world/529545

Post has attachment
Abe Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was a genocidal despotic tyrant, nothing to feel proud about. That said, Lincoln wasn't probably more racist than the average American of his time, what isn't necessarily a compliment:

«The following is a sampling of Lincoln’s racist and white supremacist beliefs (“CW” stands for Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, followed by the volume and page numbers):

“Free them [black slaves] and make them politically and socially our equal? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (CW, 2, 256). “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races.” (CW, 2, 405). “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” (CW, 2, 521). “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge [Stephen] Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position.” (CW, 2, 16).

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” (CW, 3, 145-146). “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [i.e., Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.” (CW, 3, 146). “Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for Negroes. Why, in point of fact, I think so too.” (CW, 2, 281).

As proven in the book, Colonization After Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page (University of Missouri Press), Lincoln plotted and schemed to deport all black people out of the country – so-called “colonization” – until his dying day. He even had his secretary of state, William Seward, hard at work figuring out how many ships it would take, and negotiating with foreign governments about land purchases where the former American black people could be dumped. “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation,” he declared, and “such separation . . . must be affected by colonization.” (CW, 2, 409). “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime [i.e., Africa], he said (CW, 2, 409). “The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (CW, 5, 373-374).»

— Thomas DiLorenzo. "Tear Down That Monument!: A “Progressive” Case for Demolishing the Lincoln Memorial." LewRockwell.com (July 8, 2015)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/thomas-dilorenzo/tear-down-that-monument

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Real Lincoln in His Own Words." LewRockwell.com (June 5, 2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo257.html

«• He was a consummate politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.
• He was adamantly opposed to racial equality, actually using the words "superior and inferior" to describe the "appropriate" relation between the white and black races.
• He opposed giving blacks the right to vote, to serve on juries, or to intermarry with whites.
• He supported the legal rights of slave owners and pledged his support of a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.
• He was a mercantilist and a political tool of corrupt Northern business interests.
• He was a railroad industry lobbyist who championed corporate welfare.
• He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained their freedom.
• He advocated sending all blacks back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti — anywhere but the U.S.
• He proposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law.
• He opposed the extension of slavery into the territories so that "free white people" would not have to associate with blacks or compete with them for jobs.
• He opposed black citizenship in Illinois and supported the state's constitution which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state.
• He was the head of the Illinois Colonization Society, which advocated the use of state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that resided within the state.
• He nullified the early emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.
• He sent troops to New York City to put down a draft riot by shooting hundreds of them in the streets.
• He was an enemy of free-market capitalism.
• He started a war over tax collection that ended up killing 620,000 Americans and wounding and maiming even more.
• He conjured up the spectacular lie that no such thing as state sovereignty ever existed to "justify" his invasion and conquest of the Southern states.
• He refused to meet with Confederate peace commissioners before the war to work out a peaceful compromise.
• He provoked the upper South — Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee — to secede by launching a military invasion of their sister states.
• He supported economic interventionism through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and central banking that would plunder one section of the country (the South) for the benefit of his Northern political supporters.
• He started a war without the consent of Congress; illegally declared martial law; illegally blockaded Southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; confiscated private property, including firearms; ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; tolerated the arrest of ministers who refused to publicly pray for him; arrested duly elected members of the Maryland legislature as well as Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and supported a law that indemnified federal officials from all of these illegal acts.
• He orchestrated the rigging of Northern elections.
• Introduced the slavery of conscription and income taxation.
• Censored all telegraph communication.
• Waged war on civilians by having his armies bomb Southern cities and destroy or steal crops, livestock and private property throughout the South.
• Created an enormous political patronage system that survives today.
• Allowed the unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.
• Destroyed the system of federalism and states' rights that was created by the founding fathers, thereby destroying the voluntary union.
• Promoted generals for their willingness to use troops as cannon fodder.
• Created an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size and power.»

— Thomas J DiLorenzo. "'The Weekly Standard' Feigns Objectivity." LewRockwell.com (December 29, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo56.html

«• What American President launched a massive invasion of another country that posed not threat and without a declaration of war?
• What President raised a huge army at his own will without the approval of Congress?
• What President started a war of choice in violation of every principle of Christian just war teaching?
• What President said that he had to violate the Constitution in order to save it?
• What President declared the elected legislatures of thirteen states to be "combinations" of criminals that he had to suppress?
• What President said he was indifferent to slavery but would use any force necessary to collect taxes?
• What President sent combat troops from the battlefield to bombard and occupy New York City?
• What President sent the Army to arrest in the middle of the night thousands of private citizens for expressing their opinions, and held them incommunicado in military prisons with total denial of due process of law, and had his soldiers destroy newspapers plants?
• What President was the first ruler in the Civilised World to make medicine a contraband of war?
• What President signed for his cronies special licenses to purchase valuable cotton from an enemy country even though he had forbidden such trade and punished other people for the same practice?
• What President refused medical care and food to his own soldiers held by the enemy country?
• What President presided over he bombardment and house-by-house destruction of cities and towns that were undefended and not military targets?
• What President's forces deliberately targeted women and children, and destroyed their housing, food supply, and private belongings?
• What President's occupying forces engaged in imprisonment, torture, and execution of civilians, and seizing them as hostages?
• Under what President did the Army have the largest number of criminals, mercenaries, and foreigners?
• Who was the first American President to plot the assassination of an opposing Head of State?
• Who had the least affiliation with Christianity of any American President and blamed God for starting the war over which he presided?
• What President voted for and praised a law which forbade black people from settling in his state?
• What President said that all black people should be expelled from the United States because they could never be full-fledged citizens?
• What President was the first to force citizens to accept as legal money pieces of paper unbacked by gold or silver?
• Who was the first President to institute an income tax?
• Who was the first President to pile up a national debt too vast to be paid off in a generation?
• Who is considered almost universally as the greatest American President, indeed as the greatest American of all times and as a world hero of Democracy?
• What predecessor is President Obama most often compared to?»

~ Clyde Wilson. "Presidential Quiz."

— Tom E Woods Jr. "A Crummy Ranking of the Crummy Presidents." The Tom Woods Show (February 20, 2017) ep. 853 [33 min]
http://tomwoods.com/ep-853-a-crummy-ranking-of-the-crummy-presidents

— Tom E Woods Jr. "The Real Lincoln." The Tom Woods Show (October 7, 2013) ep 11 [29 min]
http://tomwoods.com/ep-11-the-real-lincoln

• Thomas J DiLorenzo (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "On Lincoln’s Birthday, Tell the Truth." The Tom Woods Show (February 12, 2014) ep 95 [30 min]
http://tomwoods.com/ep-95-on-lincolns-birthday-tell-the-truth
Highlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97wfeFPXuZE [12 min]

• Thomas DiLorenzo (guest) and Howard Phillips (host). "Abe Lincoln -- The Scoundrel!" Conservative Roundtable, The Conservative Caucus (2009) TTCTV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taSJjhGXu20 [28 min]

• Thomas J DiLorenzo (guest) and Brian Lamb (host). "Thomas DiLorenzo: Author of 'The Real Lincoln' and 'Lincoln Unmasked'." Q&A, C-SPAN (April 14, 2008) [59 min]
https://www.c-span.org/video/?204650-1/qa-thomas-dilorenzo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac [59 min]

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Why Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln." [Conference] LewRockwell.com (October 10, 2007) ; Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties, The Future of Freedom Foundation (Hyatt Reston; June 1-4, 2007)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo132.html
1/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUKpbNgnuEM [10 min]
2/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rafMRTR6DIg [10 min]
3/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzVunCpeaoE [10 min]
4/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG12gjy_obc [10 min]
5/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWM_EjoqfFY [10 min]
6/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sajj16sJS1c [10 min]

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "1. Lincoln's Tariff War." Lecture 1 of 10 from the Steven Berger Seminar: "Thomas DiLorenzo on Liberty and American Civilization." (June 5, 2006) Mises Institute [97 min]
https://mises.org/library/1-lincolns-tariff-war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_-U1YA978 [97 min]

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "2. Abraham Lincoln and the Triumph of Mercantilism in America." Lecture 2 of 10 from the Steven Berger Seminar: "Thomas DiLorenzo on Liberty and American Civilization." Mises Institute (June 5, 2006) [52 min]
https://mises.org/library/2-abraham-lincoln-and-triumph-mercantilism-america
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekOpqN3ik_g [54 min]

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "3. Lincoln vs. the Constitution." Lecture 3 of 10 from the Steven Berger Seminar: "Thomas DiLorenzo on Liberty and American Civilization." Mises Institute (June 6, 2006) [95 min]
https://mises.org/library/3-lincoln-vs-constitution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVmgUqv8ZcE [95 min]

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln's Tariff War." The Trouble with Taxation Conference (Charlottesville VA; January 15, 2005) Mises Institute
https://mises.org/library/lincolns-tariff-war-0

• Harry V Jaffa and Thomas J DiLorenzo (debaters), David J Theroux (moderator). "The Real Abraham Lincoln: A Debate." The Independent Institute (Oakland CA; May 7, 2002)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtbUAle_7xI [109 min]

Further reading:

LewRockwell.com

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Deification of Lincoln (and of the American State)." LewRockwell.com (April 27, 2017)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/thomas-dilorenzo/the-deification-of-lincoln

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Ron Paul vs. The Lincoln Cult." LewRockwell.com (October 24, 2015)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/thomas-dilorenzo/lincoln-cult-attacks-ron-paul

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln’s Model of a Modern Major General." LewRockwell.com (September 5, 2015)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/thomas-dilorenzo/the-foreign-terrorist-lincoln-tried-to-hire

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Tear Down That Monument!: A “Progressive” Case for Demolishing the Lincoln Memorial." LewRockwell.com (July 8, 2015)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/thomas-dilorenzo/tear-down-that-monument

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Very Model of a Modern Major Lincoln Cultist." LewRockwell.com (April 15, 2015)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/thomas-dilorenzo/lincoln-cultists-love-the-omnipotent-state

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The New Generation of Holocaust Deniers." LewRockwell.com (November 26, 2014)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/thomas-dilorenzo/war-crimes-denial

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Debunking the Myth of 'National Unity': Northern Opposition to Lincoln’s War." LewRockwell.com (October 8, 2014)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/thomas-dilorenzo/the-myth-of-national-unity

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Cover-Up Library and Museum." LewRockwell.com (August 9, 2014)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/thomas-dilorenzo/lincolns-racial-views

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Lincoln Cult on Display: How Eric Foner, Manisha Sinha, and James Oakes Failed to Defame Judge Napolitano." LewRockwell.com (March 24, 2014)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/thomas-dilorenzo/the-lincoln-cult-on-sickening-display

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Regime Celebrates its Birthday." LewRockwell.com (February 12, 2014)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/thomas-dilorenzo/the-regime-celebrates-its-birthday

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Was Hitler Inspired by Lincoln’s Army?" LewRockwell.com (January 31, 2014)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/thomas-dilorenzo/was-hitler-inspired-by-lincolns-army

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Nationalize Everything – Even Thanksgiving." LewRockwell.com (November 28, 2013)
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/thomas-dilorenzo/lincoln-nationalized-thanksgiving

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Why Neocons Are Freaking Out Over Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (June 21, 2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo259.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Spielberg’s Sovietization of U.S. History: The Bait-and-Switch Game of 'Historical Docudrama'." LewRockwell.com (February 12, 2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo258.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Real Lincoln in His Own Words." LewRockwell.com (June 5, 2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo257.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo (interviewee) and Anthony Wile (interviewer). "Thomas DiLorenzo: More on the Myth of Lincoln, Secession and the 'Civil War'." LewRockwell.com (June 3, 2013) ; The Daily Bell (2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/wile/wile74.1.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Allen Guelzo Misinforms the World Socialist Movement About Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (April 8, 2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo251.html
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/thomas-dilorenzo/more-lincoln-myths

• Walter E Williams. "Abraham Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (February 20, 2013)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams157.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment." LewRockwell.com (November 30, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo245.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Why the Totalitarians Among Us Love Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (November 29, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo244.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln’s Greatest Failure (Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)." LewRockwell.com (November 15, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo242.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln the Racist (Or: Steven Spielberg, Call Your Office)." LewRockwell.com (November 10, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo241.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Time’s Rx: More Politics, More Politicians, More Lincoln Worship." LewRockwell.com (November 1, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo239.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Propagandist for State-Run Media Wants Even More of Your Money." LewRockwell.com (October 11, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo238.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Lincoln Curse (Obama Edition)." LewRockwell.com (September 27, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo237.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Will Ron Paul Destroy the 'Party of Lincoln'?" LewRockwell.com (January 4, 2012)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo224.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Birth of American Imperialism." LewRockwell.com (September 22, 2011)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo215.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed." LewRockwell.com (August 16, 2011)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo211.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed." LewRockwell.com (April 9, 2011)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo205.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Latest New York Times Nonsense About Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (December 16, 2010)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo198.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Most Cynical and Hypocritical Speech Ever Delivered." LewRockwell.com (November 30, 2010)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo197.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "How the Lincoln Myth Was Hatched." LewRockwell.com (July 22, 2010)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo191.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Glenn Beck's Lincoln Contradictions." LewRockwell.com (July 17, 2010)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo190.html

• Scott Smith. "Tom DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln, US Authoritarianism and Manipulated History." LewRockwell.com (May 17, 2010)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo186.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "False Virtue: The Politics of Lying About History." LewRockwell.com (May 6, 2010)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo185.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "How They Lie About Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (July 21, 2009)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo174.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "A 'Lincoln Scholar' Comes Clean." LewRockwell.com (February 12, 2009)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo167.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Team of Liars." LewRockwell.com (November 22, 2008)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo159.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Call of the Tyrant." LewRockwell.com (October 2, 2008)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo150.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Are There Limits to Lincoln Idolatry?" LewRockwell.com (April 29, 2008)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo141.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult." LewRockwell.com (January 12, 2008)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo139.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Judge Napolitano on Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (January 8, 2008)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo138.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Was Jesus — or Lincoln — the Savior of the World?" LewRockwell.com (November 8, 2007)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo133.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Why Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln." [Conference] LewRockwell.com (October 10, 2007) ; Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties, The Future of Freedom Foundation (Hyatt Reston; June 1-4, 2007)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo132.html
1/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUKpbNgnuEM [10 min]
2/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rafMRTR6DIg [10 min]
3/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzVunCpeaoE [10 min]
4/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG12gjy_obc [10 min]
5/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWM_EjoqfFY [10 min]
6/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sajj16sJS1c [10 min]

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "A Fitting Tribute to a Corrupt Tyrant." LewRockwell.com (September 11, 2007)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo127.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Party Hacks, Propagandists and Apologists." LewRockwell.com (July 5, 2007)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo124.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Newsweek's Voodoo 'Gospel'." LewRockwell.com (December 8, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo118.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln Unmasked." LewRockwell.com (October 12, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo112.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "America's Temple to Political Plunder." LewRockwell.com (October 10, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo111.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "My Pilgrimage to THE SHRINE." LewRockwell.com (September 20, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo109.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up." LewRockwell.com (July 24, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "A House Undivided Cannot Stand." LewRockwell.com (June 3, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo102.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "America's Jacobin Ideologues." LewRockwell.com (April 8, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo101.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Latest Defamation of Jefferson." LewRockwell.com (March 31, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo100.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "A President's Mission To Destroy the Press." LewRockwell.com (January 25, 2006)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo99.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "A Plagiarist's Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry." LewRockwell.com (November 28, 2005)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo98.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Getting Lincoln Half Right and Half Wrong." LewRockwell.com (June 17, 2005)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo94.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Greatest Presidential Reflection Since Lincoln?" LewRockwell.com (January 24, 2005)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo89.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Spooner's Fiery Attack on Lincolnite Hypocrisy." LewRockwell.com (November 26, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo87.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Still More Trouble for the Lincoln Cartel." LewRockwell.com (October 29, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo83.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The American Gulag." LewRockwell.com (September 24, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo79.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "More Trouble for the Lincoln Cartel." LewRockwell.com (September 7, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo78.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincolnian Totalitarians." LewRockwell.com (August 31, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo77.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln's 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice." LewRockwell.com (August 19, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo75.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo (interviewee). "The Real DiLorenzo: A ‘Southern Partisan' Interview." LewRockwell.com (June 17, 2004) ; Southern Partisan (2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo68.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Political Birds of a Feather: Hillary and Neocons Celebrate a Lincoln Speech." LewRockwell.com (May 27, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo66.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Champions of Nonsense." LewRockwell.com (February 26, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo61.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Neocon Case for Imprisoning and Executing Congressional War Opponents." LewRockwell.com (January 15, 2004)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "'The Weekly Standard' Feigns Objectivity." LewRockwell.com (December 29, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo56.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Making Cannon Fodder: A Straussian Neocon Exposes the Big Lincoln Lie Strategy." LewRockwell.com (November 19, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo55.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Pledging Allegiance to the Omnipotent Lincolnian State." LewRockwell.com (October 17, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Why the Republican Party Elected Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (October 1, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo53.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Founding Fathers of Insider Trading." LewRockwell.com (August 30, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo51.html
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/08/thomas-dilorenzo/dishonest-abe

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The GOP's Liberian Connection." LewRockwell.com (July 10, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo49.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincolnian Judicial Tyranny." LewRockwell.com (June 26, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo48.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Leo Lincoln?" LewRockwell.com (May 22, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo46.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Let's put myths to rest." LewRockwell.com (May 4, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The 'Buy America' Myth." LewRockwell.com (April 16, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo43.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln's Spectacular Lie." LewRockwell.com (February 25, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo41.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "How Lincoln's Army 'Liberated' the Indians." LewRockwell.com (February 12, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo40.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "AEI Is Still Fighting the 'Civil War'." LewRockwell.com (February 6, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo39.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Claremont vs. The Founding Fathers." LewRockwell.com (February 3, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo38.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Politically Correct History." LewRockwell.com (January 23, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Anti-Lincoln Gangs of New York." LewRockwell.com (January 4, 2003)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo36.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Private Property and the American Heritage." LewRockwell.com (December 6, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo33.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Claremont's Court Historians." LewRockwell.com (October 12, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo31.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln, Gold, and Greenbacks." LewRockwell.com (September 24, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo30.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Economics of Slavery." LewRockwell.com (September 21, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Abraham Dubya Bush." LewRockwell.com (August 30, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo28.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Unknown Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (July 16, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo26.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Fake Lincoln Quotes." LewRockwell.com (July 10, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo25.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Weirdest Defense of Lincoln Yet." LewRockwell.com (June 27, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo24.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "More Lies and Sophistry." LewRockwell.com (June 17, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo23.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Machan, Secession, and Slavery." LewRockwell.com (June 4, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo22.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Jaffa's Hitlerian Defense of Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (May 10, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo20.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "When You Know You're Doing Something Right." LewRockwell.com (May 7, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo19.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The American Anti-Civil Liberties Union." LewRockwell.com (May 2, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo18.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Rewriting Economic History." LewRockwell.com (May 1, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo17.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Was Lincoln a Tyrant?" LewRockwell.com (April 27, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo16.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Neo-Con Assault on the Constitution." LewRockwell.com (April 25, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo15.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Fighting Facts With Slander." LewRockwell.com (April 3, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo14.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Rewriting History, American Style." LewRockwell.com (March 1, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo13.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Mythical Lincoln." LewRockwell.com (February 12, 2002)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo12.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "America's Disgraceful History Of Military 'Trials'." LewRockwell.com (November 15, 2001)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo9.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Targeting Civilians." LewRockwell.com (September 17, 2001)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo8.html

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln's Culture of Death." LewRockwell.com (August 23, 2001)
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo7.html

Mises Daily

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Jeffersonian Secessionist Tradition." Mises Daily (July 8, 2014)
https://mises.org/library/jeffersonian-secessionist-tradition

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "David Brooks, The Whigs, and Corporate Welfare." Mises Daily (February 6, 2014)
https://mises.org/library/david-brooks-whigs-and-corporate-welfare

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Virus of Imperialism (Part 1)." Mises Daily (September 2, 2013)
https://mises.org/library/virus-imperialism-part-1

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Virus of Imperialism (Part 2)." Mises Daily (September 9, 2013)
https://mises.org/library/virus-imperialism-part-ii

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism." Mises Daily (August 21, 2013)
https://mises.org/library/imperialism-and-anti-imperialism

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "The Great Centralizer: Lincoln and the Growth of Statism in America." Mises Daily (December 15, 2010)
https://mises.org/library/great-centralizer-lincoln-and-growth-statism-america

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Gods, Generals, and Tariffs." Mises Daily (February 18, 2003)
https://mises.org/library/gods-generals-and-tariffs

• Thomas J DiLorenzo (interviewee). "Confronting the Lincoln Cult." Mises Daily (June 3/10, 2002)
https://mises.org/library/confronting-lincoln-cult
https://web.archive.org/web/20020802081811/http://www.mises.org:80/fullstory.asp?control=973&FS=Confronting+the+Lincoln+Cult

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln's Tariff War." Mises Daily (May 6/10, 2002)
https://mises.org/library/lincolns-tariff-war
https://web.archive.org/web/20020802080529/http://www.mises.org:80/fullstory.asp?control=952&FS=Lincoln%27s+Tariff+War

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Lincoln's Economic Legacy." Mises Daily (February 9, 2001)
https://mises.org/library/lincolns-economic-legacy

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Origins of American Vote Fraud." Mises Daily (November 22, 2000)
https://mises.org/library/origins-american-vote-fraud

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Mercantilism." Mises Daily (February 2, 1999)
https://mises.org/library/mercantilism

World Net Daily

• Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Let the Ad Hominem Begin." World Net Daily (WND.com) (February 20, 2002)
http://www.wnd.com/2002/02/12847

On Thomas J DiLorenzo:

http://www.loyola.edu/sellinger-business/academics/departments/economics/faculty/dilorenzo
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=544
https://mises.org/profile/thomas-j-dilorenzo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/there's_none_so_blind_as_those_who_will_not_see

URL G+ post source comment:
http://plus.google.com/108996865855705144283/posts/DvFoLwVYmM4

URL related G+ post:
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Kp2WBGCbFv1

Post has attachment
"The Nazis were not [anti-capitalistic] socialists", my ass!

+4th Dimension: "If you ever run into an alt right moron trying to tie Hitler with the left, know that Hitler had a distorted definition of socialism. Socialists do not believe in capitalism or private property"

According to the present snowflake definition, "Nazi" is anything leftists/progressives don't agree or don't like, including free markets, free competition, free speech (especially when it's used to express politically incorrect ideas), economic profit, individualism, individual sovereignty, personal responsibility, self-reliance, selfishness, etc.

As Ludwig von Mises suggests in the following excerpt of his treatise "Human Action", under the Third Reich, the capitalists remained as the owners of their businesses "in name only". In practice, they turned into mere trustees of their enterprises. They were required to obey "the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management":

«There are two patterns for the realization of socialism.

The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or the Russian pattern) is purely bureaucratic. All plants, shops, and farms are formally nationalized (verstaatlicht); they are departments of the government operated by civil servants. Every unit of the apparatus of production stands in the same relation to the superior central organization as does a local post office to the office of the postmaster general.

The second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production, and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. These are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsführer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management. This office (the Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham. All the wages, prices, and interest rates are fixed by the government; they are wages, prices, and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the government's orders determining each citizen's job, income, consumption, and standard of living. The government directs all production activities. The shop managers are subject to the government, not the consumers' demand and the market's price structure. This is socialism under the outward guise of the terminology of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.»

— Ludwig von Mises. "Human Action." Part Six: The Hampered Market Economy. Chapter XXVII: The Government and the Market. 2. The Intervention. (1940-1949)
http://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/865
http://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Action


Context:

«“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.
Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
- Sunday Express 28th December 1938»

— Adolf Hitler; Michael Walsh (comp.) "The Triumph of Reason - The Thinking Man's Adolf Hitler." (2002; Black House Publishing, 2012)
[A Michael Walsh Compilation of Adolf Hitler's Statements with editorial added]
https://archive.org/details/TheTriumphOfReason-TheThinkingMansAdolfHitler
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007GFXATA
https://www.amazon.com/dp/190847677X

«Hitler had this to say about the meaning of "Socialism" for Germany, as printed in an article in the UK's "Guardian, Sunday Express." December 28, 1938:…»

— Benton L Bradberry. "The Myth of German Villainy." AuthorHouse (2012) p. 165
https://books.google.com/books?id=hrZ4CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA165
https://www.amazon.com/dp/147723182X
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1477231838
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008IXT2P0

The above quote has been taken from a piece written by Adolf Hitler (or one of his ghostwriters) to be published in a British journal on December 28th 1938, two days before an appeasement agreement between the UK and Germany was signed by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Hitler himself (23 hours before a war ultimatum was to have expired):

• Nigel B Cook. "Daily Express 30 September 1938 Extracts On Peace Making Between Hitler And Chamberlain." Archive.org (October 19, 2016)
https://archive.org/details/DailyExpress30September1938ExtractsOnPeaceMakingBetweenHitlerAndChamberlain

Its content was presumably tailored to cater a more conservative audience, to propose them an alliance, an anti-Marxian front (i.e., anti-Soviet, anti-Stalinist) in order to stop the expansion of communism across Europe and the rest of the world. That's why the National Socialists try hard to depict themselves by contrast as reasonable people, seeking support among British devout Christians and proprietors.


The actual National-Socialist ideology:

«The 25 points of the NSDAP Program were composed by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler. They were publically presented on 24 February 1920 "to a crowd of almost two thousand and every single point was accepted amid jubilant approval."
[…]
Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.

THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST - THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

In these straightforward statements of intent, Hitler translated his ideology into a plan of action which would prove its popularity with the German people throughout the coming years.
[…]
9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
[…]
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
[…]
20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
[…]
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.»

"Programme of the NSDAP, 24 February 1920." Hitler Historical Museum
http://hitler.org/writings/programme 


«With every meeting the size of the audience increased and by the time Hitler appeared at the Clou restaurant center there were 5000 present. The occasion was a closed celebration of the Marxist holiday, May Day, and the Führer began like a Lenin: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” This was followed by a long dissertation on Lebensraum, in Hitler’s continuing effort to pound this concept into the membership. Sixty-two million Germans, he said, were crowded into an area only 450,000 kilometers square. “This is a ridiculous figure when one considers the size of other nations in the world today.” There were two solutions: either decrease the population by “chasing our best human material out of Germany” or “bring the soil into consonance with the population, even if it must be done by war. This is the natural way which Providence has prescribed.”»

— John Toland. "Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography." (1976)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzBkAwAAQBAJ
http://amazon.com/dp/0385420536
http://amazon.com/dp/B00JTCJF4W


Further reading:

• George Watson. "Hitler and the Socialist Dream." The Independent (November 22, 1998)
http://independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

• George Reisman. "Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian." Mises Daily (November 11, 2005)
http://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

• David Gordon. "Nazi Economic Policy." Mises Daily (January 2, 2009)
http://mises.org/library/nazi-economic-policy

• Marc S Micozzi MD. "National Health Care: Medicine in Germany, 1918-1945." The Freeman (November 1, 1993) vol 43 (11)
http://thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945
http://fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945
http://files.meetup.com/214224/National%20Health%20Care%20-%20Medicine%20in%20Germany%201918-1945.doc

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Socialism and the Lexicographers." Liberty (January 30, 1892) vol. 8 no. 34 (whole no. 216) p. 3 [document no. 1447]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2903
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n383/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/socialism-and-the-lexicographers


«First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.
[…]
Marx, as we have seen, solved it by declaring capital to be a different thing from product, and maintaining that it belonged to society and should be seized by society and employed for the benefit of all alike.
[…]
Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing,…»

— Benjamin R Tucker. "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ." Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 no.16 (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [document no. 790, 791, 794]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n21/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism


Likewise with the Italian Fascism:

«When the Great Depression struck in the late 1920s, Italian industry was obviously hit quite hard. Unemployment increased, and working hours decreased. The government responded to this by encouraging another wage reduction, whose effects were lessened this time by a drop in prices and the institution of additional compensation for large families. In turn, real salaries for those who remained employed did not experience a significant drop. Unemployed workers were not as fortunate, however, as they received benefits for only ninety days. The government reacted to this lack of employment and production by reducing the work week to forty hours and enacting new tariffs to protect domestic industry. It also attempted to assist Italians with the social effects of the Depression, expanding its social security system to include accident, old age, and health insurance, along with maternity benefits.»

— Patrick J Myers. "Daily Life Under Mussolini."
http://users.dickinson.edu/~osborne/myers/mussolini_life.htm
http://obituaries.tribdem.com/story/Patrick-Myers-1978-2015-751898711


«In Mussolini’s Italy each industry was regulated by a state-recognized "confederation" or alliance.»…«the purpose of these groupings, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, was to allow the central government to orchestrate "collaboration . . . between the various categories of producers in each branch of productive activity." Only legally-recognized "collaboration" was permitted,»

«In Italy, a "National Council of Corporations" saw to it that private initiative could only exist "in the service of the national interest," as defined by Mussolini.»…«The Italian National Council had the power to set prices and budgets and to issue regulations,»

«The Italian system was supported by the government’s official propaganda, which demonized private entrepreneurs and demanded that all industry be regulated in a "spirit of national collaboration."»

«Mussolini’s government claimed that its bureaucratic scheme would render the Italian economy "vigorous, careful and efficient,"»

«Despite Mussolini’s masterful propaganda efforts, Italian fascism was an economic debacle, described at the time in The Economist as a "costly bureaucracy from which . . . industrialists . .. put into practice the worst kind of monopolistic practices at the expense of the little fellow who is squeezed out in the process."»

— Thomas J DiLorenzo. "Regimentation." Mises Daily (October 11, 2000)
http://mises.org/library/regimentation


• Tarsitani. "Origini e sviluppo della sanità pubblica."
http://www.sociologia.uniroma1.it/users/tarsitani/storia%20sanità%20pubb%20SSN.pdf

• Capitolo 1: "Organizzazione sanitaria." Simone S.p.A.
http://simone.it/catalogo/v324_10.pdf

• Alessandro Battistella. "Elementi di sviluppo dei servizi sociali nel tempo" (storia assistenza). Università Ca' Foscari Venezia
http://venus.unive.it/matdid.php?utente=abattistella&base=/storia+assistenza.ppt
PPT: http://venus.unive.it/matdid.php?utente=abattistella&base=/storia+assistenza.ppt&cmd=file

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistenza_sanitaria#In_Italia
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_nazionale_per_l%27assicurazione_contro_le_malattie

http://archiviodistatogorizia.beniculturali.it/il-patrimonio/fondi-di-enti-pubblici/istituto-nazionale-per-lassicurazione-contro-le-malattie-bb-129-e-regg-66-1923-1981-inventario


And in the militaristic Japanese Empire (pp. 338, 941):

Japan: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (1st edition) Kōdansha (1993) ISBN-10: 4069310983, 4062064898, 4062064901
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL17020759W/Japan
http://archive.org/details/japanillustrated01koda
http://archive.org/details/japanillustrated02koda

URL G+ posts source comment:
https://plus.google.com/109987034260044904311/posts/g7RW7LK94H4
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/97769gZzmMG

URL related G+ posts:
http://plus.google.com/+JürgenHubert/posts/abATnucC5DF
http://plus.google.com/+Yie-MingChen/posts/SJoAQiCUags
http://plus.google.com/+PeterLindelauf/posts/5AKNaAsp6qb
http://plus.google.com/103891918598822487751/posts/WqzQSAfXjPA
http://plus.google.com/+davidbrin1/posts/PDRMjuKZwou
http://plus.google.com/110685273879923679231/posts/7QwYoGsK2Yw
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/TR9royU1pVL


Post has attachment
Jon Thompson Jun 7, 4:45 PM [UTC]
The first month of WWI killed as many people as the American Civil War. 

Zephyr López Cervilla
But not as many Americans.
The Kabul bombing on May 31, 2017 killed nineteen times as many people as the terrorist attack in London on June 4, 2017, but most of the victims of the former one weren't Christian Westerners:

• Ben Westcott. "Kabul bombing: Death toll jumps to 150, one week after attack." CNN (June 6, 2017)
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/06/middleeast/afghanistan-kabul-bomb-death-toll/index.html

• Haroon Siddique and Matthew Weaver. "London attack: Met raises official death toll to eight after victim recovered from Thames – as it happened." The Guardian (7 June 2017)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/07/london-attacks-new-arrest-as-mi5-prepares-to-review-counter-terrorism-live-updates

Jon Thompson
True and oddly irrelevant as far as I can tell. My point is trying to comprehend the scope of WW1 by leveraging stats that I already know.
Zephyr I can't help but feel occasionally attacked by you for no obvious reason, but your posts are often so cryptic that I'm unsure.

Zephyr López Cervilla
+Jon Thompson, easy to explain. It's the effect of your cognitive dissonance: you've been occasionally hallucinating you were being personally attacked. You might feel identified with the US government and its shills, so you take it personally my criticism against their hypocrisy and double standards.

• Tom E Woods Jr. "The Jerry Pogue Lecture: How Murray Rothbard Changed my Mind on War." "The Truth About War: A revisionist Approach." Mises Institute (Callaway Gardens GA; October 26, 2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBCiMxuX9_g [21 min]

• Tom E Woods Jr. "Four Things the State is Not." Mises University lecture, Mises Institute (Auburn AL; July 24, 2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2_dPLBlvDI [60 min]

• Tom E Woods Jr. "War: Big Government's Best Friend." Mises Institute's seminar; Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow (Furman University, uploaded March 2, 2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3EryUG0EA [49 min]
Highlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbyepVYBV1s [3 min]

• Scott Adams. "An Example of Cognitive Dissonance." Scott Adams' Blog (June 3, 2017)
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/161390195661

[+Jon Thompson (plus.google.com/107010929992251098155 ), alias thin-skinned snowflake, blocked me before I could post this last comment.]
______

URL G+ source comments:
http://plus.google.com/107010929992251098155/posts/5Zr6NSrbFwV

Post has attachment
• Carrie Arnold. "The mathematicians who want to save democracy: With algorithms in hand, scientists are looking to make elections in the United States more representative." Nature News (7 June 2017)
https://www.nature.com/news/the-mathematicians-who-want-to-save-democracy-1.22113
Comment:

«A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Winston Churchill wasn't necessarily making a compliment when he said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the rest. Democracy has no more claim to legitimacy than totalitarian dictatorship.»

— James Bovard. "Re: One Person's Impact." Usenet group sci.environment (April 23, 1990)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.environment/hos-RvIO1Mw/b3f0iWMcewUJ

«Political mechanisms have the opposite arrangement. You have to enforce conformity on people, you have to decide on the standard, you have to decide on who's gonna pay and who's gonna get. And when 51% of the people say one thing and 49% say the other, a 100% do what the 51% say. As a result, the more you have to use political mechanisms, the more you tend to strain the social fabric.» [At 5:55]

— Milton Friedman. "The Welfare Establishment." (1978) Lecture given at Cornell University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEP1BzSeMQ [10 min]

«Director's law is that almost invariably Government's programs benefit the middle income class at the expense of the very poor and the very rich.» [At 42:17]

— Milton Friedman. "Myths That Conceal Reality." (1977-78) Lecture given at Utah State University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNtKk2EmI-o [53 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNc-xhH8kkk [53 min]
Q&A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_buy968n-Y [29 min]

«Using panel data on 23 OECD countries over the time period of 1971–2005, we find robust evidence that income inequality is indeed associated with more redistribution. Most importantly, we find evidence for Director’s law: income is redistributed from the rich and from the bottom 20 per cent of the income distribution towards the middle class.»

— Mohl P and Pamp O. "Income Inequality, Redistributional Spending & Director's Law–An Empirical Investigation." Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society (2008)
http://ncgg.princeton.edu/IPES/2008/papers/F33_paper3.pdf

«In addition, we also found some evidence consistent with the (modified) Director’s Law, which suggests that democracy redistributes from the rich and the poor to the middle class, and therefore its effect on inequality may depend on the relative position of the middle class vis-a-vis the poor and the rich.»

— Acemoglu D et al. "Democracy, redistribution and inequality." National Bureau of Ecomnomic Research (NBER) (2013) Working Paper 19746
http://nber.org/papers/w19746

• Harms P and Zink S. "Limits to redistribution in a democracy: a survey." European Journal of Political Economy (2003) vol. 19 (4) pp. 651-668
http://sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.bz/science/article/pii/S0176268003000211

• Feld L and Schnellenbach J. "Still a director's law? On the political economy of income redistribution." Institute for Research in Economic and Fiscal Issues (IREF) (2007)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228785579

• Stigler GJ. "Director's Law of Public Income Redistribution." Chicago Studies in Political Economics (1988)
http://jstor.org.sci-hub.bz/stable/724835

• Michael Malice. "Why I won't vote this year – or any year." The Guardian (14 October 2014)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/why-i-will-not-vote

• Michael Malice. "Why I’ve Never Respected The Police." Thought Catalog (December 4, 2014)
http://thoughtcatalog.com/michael-malice/2014/12/why-ive-never-respected-the-police

«An interesting article in The Atlantic [1] talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language.
[…]
As I often say, fairness is a concept invented so children and idiots can participate in debates. Fairness is a subjective illusion. It isn’t a rule of physics, and it isn’t an objective quality of the universe. We just think it is.

On the conservative side, morality is usually seen as coming from God. I’m not a believer, so I see morality as a set of rationalizations for our biological impulses.»

— Scott Adams. "How to Persuade the Other Party." Scott Adams' Blog (February 15, 2017)
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157277690511

1. Olga Khazan. "The Simple Psychological Trick to Political Persuasion: Conservatives are more likely to support issues like immigration and Obamacare if the message is “morally reframed” to suit their values." The Atlantic (February 1, 2017)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-simple-psychological-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181

«L’État, c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.»

[ "The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." ]

— Frédéric Bastiat. "L'État." ["The State."] Journal des Débats (no. du 25 septembre 1848) p. 1 col. 5
Fr http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html
Fr http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56881118
En http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html
En http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
En http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

• Wendy McElroy. "I the Person versus We the People." Mises Daily (July 20, 2011)
https://mises.org/library/i-person-versus-we-people

• Michael Munger. "Unicorn Governance." Foundation for Economic Education (August 11, 2014)
https://fee.org/articles/unicorn-governance

• Michael Munger. "We Have A Serious Unicorn Problem." Learn Liberty (November 22, 2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mSvsSLPtLo [3 min]

«I intend to establish three points: 1) there is no such thing as a government of law and not people, 2) the belief that there is serves to maintain public support for society’s power structure, and 3) the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law.
[…]
The reason why the myth of the rule of law has survived for 100 years despite the knowledge of its falsity is that it is too valuable a tool to relinquish. The myth of impersonal government is simply the most effective means of social control available to the state.»

— John Hasnas. "The Myth of the Rule of Law." Wisconsin Law Review (1995) no. 199 pp. 199-233
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
PDF http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythFinalDraft.pdf
http://www.copblock.org/40719/myth-rule-law-john-hasnas

• John Hasnas (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "The Rule of Law is a Myth." The Tom Woods Show (May 6, 2014) ep. 151 [25 min]
http://tomwoods.com/the-rule-of-law-is-a-myth

• Tom E Woods Jr. "Four Things the State is Not." Mises University lecture, Mises Institute (Auburn AL; July 24, 2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2_dPLBlvDI [60 min]
VOSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzKenT6IMwE [60 min]

• Tom E Woods Jr. "The Jerry Pogue Lecture: How Murray Rothbard Changed my Mind on War." "The Truth About War: A revisionist Approach." Mises Institute (Callaway Gardens GA; October 26, 2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBCiMxuX9_g [21 min]
Multi-lang subt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdzWc9NuWro [21 min]

• Tom E Woods Jr. "War: Big Government's Best Friend." Mises Institute's seminar; Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow (Furman University, uploaded March 2, 2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3EryUG0EA [49 min]
Highlight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbyepVYBV1s [3 min]

• Tom E Woods Jr. "Taxation Isn’t Theft, Because of the Social Contract." The Tom Woods Show (March 8, 2017) ep. 865 [24 min]
http://tomwoods.com/ep-865-taxation-isnt-theft-because-of-the-social-contract

• Tom E Woods Jr. "About That Social Contract I Never Signed…." The Tom Woods Show (December 1, 2015) ep. 545 [36 min]
http://tomwoods.com/ep-545-about-that-social-contract-i-never-signed

• Murray N Rothbard. "Anatomy of the State." (1974) Ludwig con Mises Institute (2009) "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays." (1974) pp. 55–88
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/AnatomyState.html

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Resistance to Taxation." Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 1 [document no. 597]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n63/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/resistance-to-taxation

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Relation of the State to the Individual." Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 (15) (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Rights and Contract." Liberty (December 14, 1895) vol. 11 no. 16 (whole no. 328) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2134-2135]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/12/14/rights-and-contract
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3016

• Max Stirner. "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum." Leipzig: Otto Wigand 1845 [Oktober 1844] ; Steven T Byington (translation). "The Ego and His Own." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (1907)
De https://books.google.com/books?id=As1cAAAAcAAJ
De http://lsr-projekt.de/msee.html
En http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
En http://df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
En http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
En https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own
Excerpt http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/93pD9pzsyK5

• James L Walker ("Tak Kak"). "What Is Justice?" Liberty (March 6, 1886) vol. 3 no. 25 (whole no. 77) p. 8 [document no. 454]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/362
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2778

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Comment on 'What Is Justice?'" Liberty (March 6, 1886) vol. 3 no. 25 (whole no. 77) p. 8 [document no. 454]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2778

• James L Walker ("Tak Kak"). "Stirner on Justice." Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document no. 603]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797

• James L Walker ("Tak Kak"). "Egoism." Liberty (April 9, 1887) vol. 4 no. 19 (whole no. 97) pp. 5-7 [document no. 609-611]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2798

• James L Walker. "The Philosophy of Egoism." Katherine Walker (1905)
https://archive.org/details/philosophyofegoi00walk

• James C Scott. "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia." Yale Agrarian Studies, Yale University Press (2009)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed
https://books.google.com/books?id=oiLYu2-uc8IC
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300169175
Excerpts:
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/FxJqkmfSEuY
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/eLxnL51rqfs

• George Carlin. "It's Bad for Ya." HBO Special (New York City NY; 2008)
Full transcript http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2016/11/10/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
7/8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cwOqKfEYTg [10 min]
8/8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8 [9 min]
16/16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4 [5 min]

• George Carlin. "Back in Town." HBO Special (New York City NY; 1996)
Full transcript http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2017/04/10/george-carlin-back-town-1996-full-transcript
63/64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jnf9GILjFM [1 min]
16/16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA [3 min]
16/16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk [4 min]
16/16 https://dotsub.com/view/0b8100cc-b7c5-4b5e-97a3-76911f31e72e

• George Carlin. "Jammin' in New York." HBO Special (New York City NY; 1992)
Full transcript http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2017/04/06/george-carlin-jamming-new-york-1992-full-transcript
1/6 https://dotsub.com/view/26a76d07-da13-4c49-96c1-f67d1b507707 [10 min]

• Larken Rose, Harvey Lester (video editor). "Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion." Liberty or Death Media (September 25, 2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0 [13 min]

• Larken Rose (writing), Poxodd (illustration), Rex Brocki (narration). "The Jones Plantation." Outside the Cage, LarkenRose.com (May 9, 2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk_ [12 min]

• Brett Veinotte. "Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous." _School Sucks Podcast (April 22, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg [13 min]
______

URL G+ posts source comment:
http://plus.google.com/+SabineHossenfelder/posts/ereUddYABwV
http://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/aKKo2qZbbcq

Post has attachment
National identities

Zephyr López Cervilla
Statist BS.

JD
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Really? If it gets all gray, will you be wearing your arm band?

Zephyr López Cervilla
Governments' flags don't represent "multiculturalism". Governments only represent their own tradition of nationalist indoctrination of collectivist ideology, their history of wars of aggression, their coercion, enslavement and subjugation of the population under their control. National borders aren't but the boundaries of the human farms exploited by the gangs of thugs who call themselves "authorities".

JD
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Sad that you have choosen to leave the People out of it. Culture has more to do with the arts, architecture, food, clothing, music etc... People don't need any government to get culture.

Zephyr López Cervilla
The bottom map does't depict any "people" (i.e., the plural of "person"), but governments' flags and national borders. Ethnocultural boundaries represent nationalist fantasies invented and spread by governments and their shills to fool the population into believing in fake national identities.

A similar case to human races (not surprisingly, often also being used as of symbols of national identities). While the distribution of cultural and genetic traits of the individuals is geographically heterogeneous, that is, the relative proportion of haplotypes and cultural memes isn't the same everywhere, and also similar proportions tend to cluster in nearby areas, the boundaries and divisions are utterly arbitrary.

For instance, the guy who lives in Strasbourg, nearby the French border with Germany is more likely to share much of his culture with the guy who lives on the other side of the border 53 miles away in Karlsruhe (Germany), than with the guy who lives 250 miles away in Paris.
The only real cultural boundaries are those between individuals. All the other boundaries are ultimately fictional and arbitrary.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_YfftUIFb9R1MxIEd4TWjaRPyX3GaIgUDqkkXX-VinPtsiPjFX9IcTLVuoOccnXk-yXzhDe5lQ

JD
+Zephyr López Cervilla
I have been to Europe and for example even though Austria and Germany are next to each other and interwined with its people, both have a different culture with the look of the cities, clothing and food along with music. Nothing to do with govenment's flags or anything like that.

Zephyr López Cervilla
+JD, the traditional clothing and German language varieties spoken by most Austrians are very similar to those used by most Bavarians (look up "München", "Salzburg" and "Wien" below in the map). On the other hand, "traditionally", governments have been more than willing to homogenise and promote a number of superficial but very apparent cultural traits such as clothing, dances, music, literature, history teaching, etc. to fabricate "national identities" (e.g., in state-sponsored schools and "public" schools and universities, through the state-controlled media). A similar process to that applied to create "different" dog breeds in a few centuries if not in just several decades. The widespread use of social engineering has a long history.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Oberdeutsche_Dialekte.png
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_German

SW
The bottom map gives me places to run to in hopes of less governmental control over what should be my private life. I have no desire to join the Borg.

Zephyr López Cervilla
http://www.governancenow.com/files/breeds-cattle.jpg
Source:
http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/thats-something-chew-

JD
+Zephyr López Cervilla
I totally agree with you the social engeneering part of society. I did mentioned that Austrian and German are close in culture, however there is still a difference. Then you have France which is on the German border but with a totally different culture.

Zephyr López Cervilla
+JD: "Then you have France which is on the German border but with a totally different culture."

— Except for the fact that Strasbourg is within French borders and the local culture is far from fitting into "French culture". For starters, most of the local population speaks a German dialect. A similar argument can be made on regards to a number of other "French" territories (e.g., Corsica, Brittany, Gascony, Languedoc, Roussillon, Normandy, the department of Nord, Alpes-Maritimes, in addition to Alsace and Lorraine). National boundaries are arbitrary and mean nothing, other than demarcating the imaginary territory controlled by each of the gangs of the cartel of thugs who call themselves "authorities".

"Does anyone speak French in Strasbourg?" Thorn Tree Forum, Lonely Planet (2008)
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/forums/europe-western-europe/france/does-anyone-speak-french-in-strasbourg

«The traditional language of the région is Alsatian, an Alemannic dialect of Upper German spoken on both sides of the Rhine and closely related to Swiss German. Some Frankish dialects of West Central German are also spoken in "Alsace Bossue" and in the extreme north of Alsace. Neither Alsatian nor the Frankish dialects have any form of official status, as is customary for regional languages in France, although both are now recognized as languages of France and can be chosen as subjects in lycées.

Although Alsace has been part of France multiple times in the past, the region had no direct connection with the French state for several centuries. From the end of the Roman Empire (5th century) to the French annexation (17th century), Alsace was politically part of the Germanic world.

The towns of Alsace were the first to adopt German language as their official language, instead of Latin, during the Lutheran Reform. It was in Strasbourg that German was first used for the liturgy. It was also in Strasbourg that the first German Bible was published in 1466.

From the annexation of Alsace by France in the 17th century and the language policy of the French Revolution up to 1870, knowledge of French in Alsace increased considerably. With the education reforms of the 19th century, the middle classes began to speak and write French well. The French language never really managed, however, to win over the masses, the vast majority of whom continued to speak their German dialects and write in German (which we would now call "standard German").

Between 1870 and 1918, Alsace was annexed by the German Empire in the form of an imperial province or Reichsland, and the mandatory official language, especially in schools, became High German. French lost ground to such an extent that it has been estimated that only 2% of the population spoke French fluently and only 8% had some knowledge of it (Maugue, 1970).

After 1918, French was the only language used in schools, and particularly primary schools. After much argument and discussion and after many temporary measures, a memorandum was issued by Vice-Chancellor Pfister in 1927 and governed education in primary schools until 1939.

During a reannexation by Germany (1940–1945), High German was reinstated as the language of education. The population was forced to speak German and 'French' family names were Germanized. Following the Second World War, the 1927 regulation was not reinstated and the teaching of German in primary schools was suspended by a provisional rectorial decree, which was supposed to enable French to regain lost ground. The teaching of German became a major issue, however, as early as 1946. Following World War II, the French government pursued, in line with its traditional language policy, a campaign to suppress the use of German as part of a wider Francization campaign.»

"Alsace: Language."Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace#Language

"Upper Rhine."Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Rhine

JD
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Bottom line, what is a dialect if it is not part of culture...?

Zephyr López Cervilla
+JD, part of what culture? I think you missed the point. What have been fabricated are the so called "national" cultures. Individual's cultures do exist. The individual who speaks a language (or "dialect") does possess such ability as part of their culture, but it's a personal culture, not a "national" one, hence the inter-individual cultural diversity. No two individuals speak exactly the same language, in spite of governments efforts to homogenise the population under their control.

URL original G+ post:
http://plus.google.com/+SeanDali/posts/j2sQTwWr5aP
PhotoPhotoPhotoPhoto
6/6/17
4 Photos - View album
Wait while more posts are being loaded