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 600 Comments 21,554 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


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. reason.com/archives/2015/02/06…

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. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Am…

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. www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/opinion…

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?
Before you all get your panties in a bundle, I could just as easily make a thread called, "ALL You Democrat Voters Are Wrong." But that would be too easy/obvious/pointless to put any effort into it.

I'll get right to the point. This is a travesty:

17.0% Bush
11.2% Christie
10.0% Ryan
8.6% Paul
8.0% Huckabee
8.0% Carson
8.0% Walker
5.5% Cruz
4.5% Rubio
4.3% Perry
2.8% Jindal
2.5% Kasich

www.realclearpolitics.com/epol…

And that's before they inevitably include Mitt Romney. By my calculations, at least 36% of you are just openly evil, and a full majority of you are lost, confused, and scared. Allow me to try to show you the light of common sense

Romney
Third time's the charm, right? Because if he couldn't beat Jimmy Carter Jr. with the full financial backing of the party, and that resume, and that hair, clearly he must be really electable and Reagan-like on the 3rd try, right?

If you believe in the Mr. "electable" story, you are a fool. We warned you in 2012 that it was all a lie, and if you make him your standard-bearer again, I and millions of others will happily watch your banner go up in flames as we pull the lever for the Libertarian Party.

Bush
You're kidding, right? The Bush name has become so toxic, and has sunk the Republican Party so far for the last few decades, that it only makes sense to tie us all even tighter to that anchor, right?

If you plan on voting for Jeb Bush, I can only believe that you are a double agent, working with the Democrats to try to destroy the Republican Party from within.

Huckabee/Santorum
Is it really so important for you to force your religion on the rest of us that you will make a show of it in the primaries just to get smited by the general electorate? If the Republican Party presidential candidate goes up there and demands bans on contraception and abortion, it will be Christmas for the Democrats. Zombie Jesus Santa will just open his bag of toys and hand them the keys to the country on the spot. Keep your goddamned religion to your goddamned self, or we will all be in Hell.

Ryan
He's not even running! Even if he were, he lost a debate because he was too polite to tell Joe Biden to shut his fat, dumb face. He's a good technician, not a warrior or salesman.

Christie
Okay, he's not too polite for...pretty much anything. That means he isn't too polite to bring New Jersey big government policies nationwide, and flip you off when you complain about lost liberty. You might win with him, but you will do it without people like me, and will likely regret the results.

Walker/Carson/Cruz/Perry
So is the best qualification for president that you pissed off a bunch of Democrats once or twice and survived by the skin of your teeth? What better way to bring together a new majority than to alienate as many people as you possibly can, right? These guys are doing great things right where they are, but for the love of America, DON'T put them on a higher podium, or the media will shape them into cranky old men, ranting about hip, fun-loving grandma Hillary who just wants us all to get along. Remember what happened to Goldwater.

Rubio/Jindal/Kasich/etc..
"Who?" ...is what every single low-information voter will say about these generally good, yet uninspiring guys before they pull the lever for Hillary.

Rand Paul
This is the guy you want. He has broad appeal, a cunning political instinct, and will breathe new life into the Republican Party by reintroducing the philosophy of liberty to a nation that has forgotten its founding principles. He simultaneously manages to contrast himself with both Obama and Hillary in a way that will appeal to the young and build a future for the Republican Party. Rand Paul will set the Democrats back on their heels, scrambling to fortify a shrinking piece of land, before they eventually are forced to reinvent themselves to survive. He has shown time and time again that he can suck the air out from under the wings of both the Obama and Clinton Democrats. Rand Paul is the only candidate in the current crop that has managed to sell small-government policies to Democrats. Paul is the one candidate who has any chance of having the impact that Reagan did, because he's the only major candidate that's pushing a solid, clear message of liberty that resonates with current events and appeals across all demographics (especially the growing ones). But we need far more than 8.6% of the party supporting him to make it happen.

So Republicans, you have a choice. You can nominate Rand Paul and turn the Democrats' "demographic destiny" on its head with young libertarian support; OR you can face off against Hillary Clinton and the Libertarian Party in a 3-way election full of angry voters who don't care anymore about whether they "spoil" the chances of the dying RINO party. Those are your 2 options, and you must decide.
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:

deviantID

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

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Groups

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconanarchintheuke:
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
Reply
:iconanarchintheuke:
anarchintheuke Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2014  Professional Artist
hi
Reply
:iconanarchintheuke:
anarchintheuke Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014  Professional Artist
comments.deviantart.com/18/202…

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
Reply
:iconanarchintheuke:
anarchintheuke Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014  Professional Artist
how are you g-mang
Reply
:iconctulthu-agent-7:
ctulthu-agent-7 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014  Professional Artist
Thank you for the watch!!
Reply
:iconpartical0:
partical0 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014
I see a whole lot of bitching and not much art here....
Reply
:icondeluwyrn:
Deluwyrn Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for the watch!
Reply
:iconmadam--kitty:
Madam--Kitty Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Hi! wanna join my group called Anti-illuminati? anti-illuminati-01.deviantart.…
Reply
:iconjoope:
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
You're going to get blocked if you keep this up.
Reply
Add a Comment: