Folks, separation is our only option. — jtl, 419
As I write this, I’d like to dedicate a steaming-hot cup of STFU to all the self-righteous nanny-state supporters that portray religious-types as the official flag-bearers of American censorship. By today’s standards, the old Church-Lady barely qualifies for the JV team. It takes the authoritarian Left to elevate censorship to the Big Leagues.
A few seasonal (Christmas-themed) stories to illustrate my point. This is not because they’re the ONLY kind of Leftist censorship out there, (there’s plenty) but because they loathe Christmas with a particular ferocity — even when the Christmas-y thing they rage against isn’t remotely religious.
Example: Washington Post put forward an article on “Baby It’s Cold Outside”. This is a song first written when chastity was a value prized, not mocked, and a guy had to say more than “Netfilx and chill” to convince his consort to spend the night. The night? Well, at least long enough to do the nasty.
Seducing the fairer sex took coaxing and finesse. There was interplay, and the cultural expectation that she would “play hard to get”. The dynamic was SUPPOSED to be a cat-and-mouse game, even if she were interested in spending the night, the guy’s gotta win her over first. That song captures the interplay of that dynamic.
The fact that Jessica Contrera interprets the male protagonist’s attempt to win the lady’s consent as “rape” leaves me to ask whether she’s willfully blind or just “slow”. Worse, the fact that she’s calling for the song to be censored or even BANNED demonstrates a dangerously petty authoritarian streak.
Next we have the school that rewrote the Charlie Brown Christmas classic, deleting Linus’s explanation of Christmas. The problem? Scripture was used to explain the true meaning of Christmas. What? The explanation of Christmas tilted Christian? That’s a real head-scratcher.
I suppose, in light of the spoof petition in Yale to repeal the First Amendment (people actually signed), this last one shouldn’t surprise me. It was a similar spoof poll. This one was about Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas”. I bet you can guess where this is going, right?
Anyway, the guy stood up on a campus getting passers-by to sign up for a petition to ban, or change the lyrics to White Christmas. He peppered his pitch with words like “micro-aggression” and “white is good” and racial references like “check your privilege”. A number of students at this university didn’t even hesitate to sign this petition for banning a song from the radio.
What’s the common theme here?
Who is getting the courts involved with Nativity scenes? Who wants internet censorship, Net Neutrality, and other limits of speech they disagree with?
The only “religious” folks wanting censorship are those who have religious zeal in their Progressivism.
Watch the video below:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_gFgmXe3q1s“>Share if you want the Left to stay away from Christmas
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.