Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant Member TBSchemerMale/United States Group :iconliberals-stdt: Liberals-STDT
Liberals say the darndest things
Recent Activity
Deviant for 8 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 6 Deviations 602 Comments 21,720 Pageviews

Newest Deviations


deviation in storage by BlameThe1st


Soon-to-be presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul has just released a federal budget that balances in 5 years, cuts taxes for everyone while simplifying the tax code as far as it can go, and eliminates some of the most expensive and totalitarian government agencies.…

This plan:
*Balances the budget in 5 years (under CBO projections).
*Replaces all federal taxes with a flat 17% income tax on all real (i.e. personal and corporate, NOT capital gains) income.
*Replaces the labyrinth of tax deductions and credits with a large, universal standard deduction linked to inflation (he gives $35,000 as an example for a family filing jointly).
*Eliminates the Department of Education.
*Eliminates the Department of Commerce.
*Eliminates the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
*Eliminates the Department of Energy.
*Drastically scales back the Department of Transportation.
*Repeals Obamacare.
*Block-grants federal welfare programs (Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, and child nutrition) to the states.
*Gives individuals a choice on how to invest our Social Security account money.
*And more.

This plan would radically reform the government to be far less burdensome, far less intrusive in our lives, and far more constitutional.

What do you all think of it?
1. Which party's primary will you vote in?
2. Who will you vote for and why?
3. Which major candidates could you NEVER vote for in the general election, even if their opponent is a greater evil? (and what will you do in that case?)

Yes, it's early. Yes, a lot could change over the next year. Take a guess anyways, and let's see where everyone stands.

I'll start:

1. Republican
2. Rand Paul - The only solidly pro-liberty candidate in the major party primaries.
3. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson, all the Democrat candidates. If the Republicans choose stupidly, my fallback plan is to vote for the Libertarian Party and hope the Republicans lose and learn a lesson about alienating the libertarian part of their coalition.
Progressives love to browbeat their political opponents about scientific ignorance. Yet, it is those same progressives who are most often guilty of the most damaging forms of scientific ignorance.…

For now, I'd like to set aside those left-wing tendencies to embrace pseudoscience over real science on vaccines, GMOs, and so on, to focus on a far more damaging and widespread form of ignorance: Progressives don't know shit about economics.

Yes, that's right. Progressives are almost always entirely ignorant of the science of economics, yet can't keep their grubby little hands off of economic issues. Most progressives have never taken an economics class, have never read an economics book, and have no knowledge of economic terminology or theory. This contributes a great deal to why these progressives think government intervention is the appropriate answer to every perceived societal problem. They have no knowledge of the damaging economic consequences that result from these actions.

How can you tell if you are economically ignorant? If you first heard of the concept of "price elasticity of demand" from me, then you are economically ignorant. If you think there is a difference between "making health care a right" and "bringing the price elasticity of demand for health care to zero," then you are economically ignorant. If you think prices are higher or lower in different industries and markets because of differing levels of "greed," then you are economically ignorant. If you think there has ever been a country that went from poverty to prosperity while adopting socialism, then you are ignorant of economic history.

This economic ignorance poses a threat to society, because these ignorant people just won't stop voting to repeat the mistakes that economists have observed and tracked for centuries. How do we shine some light into the minds of these people and educate them, or at the very least, prevent them from voting based on their every ignorant whim?

UPDATE: If you find yourself to be ignorant of economics, I don't want you to think that I'm just attacking you. We're all ignorant of things at one time or another. It's not your fault if none of your schools emphasized the importance of learning this science for the sake of functioning in civilized society. So, if you find yourself in that position, I encourage you to take an introductory class on economics if you are able, or pick up a copy of a good economics text and read through it. It will change the way you think about the world. Here are a few:
:bulletyellow: Greg Mankiw's complete text.
:bulletyellow: Economics in One Lesson. This book takes a more "applied" approach, addressing the most common fallacies that repeatedly arise out of economic ignorance, time and time again throughout history.
There's a reason the law focuses on punishing harmful actions, rather than on implementing mandates and punishing inaction, at least in free societies.

Imagine a world where vaccines are mandatory under the law. How exactly would you enforce a vaccine mandate? Specifically, how would you determine who has not been vaccinated, and what would the punishment be for them or their parents?

Would you have to have a vaccination certification? What would it cost to get it? If you neglect to get it or lose it, how would the authorities find out? Aren't there privacy issues at stake there? Aren't the Democrats still, to this day, arguing that Voter ID is an affront to civil rights because poor black people can't fill out forms or go to the DMV or something? Isn't requiring people to go to the doctor and get a medical procedure done and get that certified quite a bit more intrusive, expensive, and burdensome?

So suppose people can be arrested for not vaccinating themselves or their kids...wouldn't breaking up so many families like that do more harm to our society than measles?

Those of you who have been speaking out in support of a vaccination mandate...did you think about any of these issues before jumping to the conclusion that if there's a problem, the government should fix it?
Civil asset forfeiture is when a government accuses you of a crime, and then steals your money or your things without necessarily proving your guilt or convicting you. This practice is explicitly forbidden by the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution ("No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."), yet police departments and federal agencies in this country still regularly do it and get away with it.…

The problem is these departments and agencies are often allowed to keep for themselves the money or assets that they confiscate, creating an incentive for abuse of the system for departmental gain. Hence, even if there's a chance of ultimately losing the battle, it's worth it for these agencies to go to court and fight for your stuff. This issue should be a bipartisan concern, yet one of the worst offenders of this nature is Loretta Lynch, who Barack Obama has recently nominated to lead the Department of Justice (a name that has become ironic under this president).

Though even the executive branch has begrudgingly acknowledged that civil asset forfeiture abuse is a problem, only one politician has had the integrity to actually do something about it. Senator Rand Paul has introduced the FAIR Act (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act) to ban departments and agencies from earning monetary rewards off their confiscations, and to restore the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" by placing the burden of proof on the government in confiscation cases.…

This is a cut-and-dry case of corruption that can be easily addressed. Rand Paul is one of the few people willing to set politics aside and address a case of universally-recognized government overreach by presenting a solution with bipartisan appeal. Doesn't this man belong in the Oval Office?
Other deviants on the politics forum can get 300 comments on their posts after a week if their thread is particularly controversial. I get 300 comments overnight. :iconnorrisplz:


United States
I'm a Minarchist Libertarian, fighting against the oppression that our world complacently endures.

AdCast - Ads from the Community



Add a Comment:
JLMARTINMMXIV Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you for watching😉
anarchintheuke Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2014  Professional Artist
how've you been bro? noticed you didn't respond to my note.. hope everything's okay
anarchintheuke Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2014  Professional Artist
anarchintheuke Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014  Professional Artist…

dude these assholes think i'm you please tell them to stop also they're lying saying i'm gay making up fake posts about me you know i'm not gay since i've never hit on you so please inform them that
anarchintheuke Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014  Professional Artist
how are you g-mang
ctulthu-agent-7 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014  Professional Artist
Thank you for the watch!!
partical0 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014
I see a whole lot of bitching and not much art here....
Deluwyrn Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for the watch!
Madam--Kitty Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Hi! wanna join my group called Anti-illuminati? anti-illuminati-01.deviantart.…
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
Add a Comment: