The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Declaration of Dependence

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Pirate, Chaplain, Whore

Received this via email today:

What's the difference between a pirate, chaplain and whore? Not much... they all do it for money.

A whore (prostitute) is one who sells sexual favors, for money. According to the Bible, if an unmarried woman accepts food, raiment, and shelter, she's a concubine, not a whore. Money changes everything.

A chaplain is one who is hired by the military or administration, at salary, to provide "religious" counsel, and related duties suitable for clergy. If he only accepted private charity, he wouldn't be a chaplain. Money changes everything.

A pirate is a thief and murderer, who travels by ship, and attacks the person and property of another - on sea or land. If he didn't injure or take other people's property, nor attack them, he wouldn't be a pirate.

A chaplain who blesses pirates, in the course of their plundering, is not any better than a whore or the pirates he blesses.

Based on a websearch, the median expected salary for a typical Chaplain

in the United States is $38,927. That's the going price for a Chaplain/Pirate/Whore. That's what the average whore man of the cloth accepts for his services

blessing mayhem and destruction.

Is the United States military acting for a pirate organization?

To answer that question one needs certain facts.

According to the specific delegation of authority, American governments

are instituted to secure rights and govern by consent. If one hasn't given consent, the only other reason for government to act, is to secure a right of a complaining party OR a dead body (whose consent is implied).

Is there any complaining party in America, whose person or property was

injured by agents of the (former) government of Afghanistan or Iraq? Or

of Kuwait? Or of Panama? Or of Grenada? Or any other nation that was invaded, attacked, and ransacked by agents of the U.S. government?


Is there some double secret agreement that makes the United States government into an agent for "other interests"?

Can't know of it, if it's secret!

What's left?

Apparently, the U.S. government and military have become agents of piracy, destroying property and persons in foreign lands. And all chaplains blessing said activity are whores, and whoring for pirates, to boot.

All institutions of religion that bless this activity are also acting as whores, condoning piracy, since they enjoy the benefits derived from that abomination. Their churches are whorehouses.

All those who have given their consent, are accessories to murder and destruction of other people's property.

Do you "support the troops"? Are they or are they not engaged in piracy and piracy ashore?

I can't find any evidence of a declaration of war, nor a bonafide complaint of an injured American, or proof that those nations ever attacked American

soil or people.

To the best of my understanding, the American government is engaged in an immoral, illegal, unconstitutional violation of international law, i.e., piracy, and are anathema to the patriots who fought and died for the ideals that were once the "American way".

There is no excuse, mitigating circumstance or explanation that will change the facts that have stained the American flag with the innocent blood of her victims. That's what the "American Way" means today - assault and murder.

If you're in support of that, then you're an accessory to their acts. Enjoy your "benefits" of national socialism on the pirate Ship of State, wave the "Jolly Roger", and puff out your chest in pride over the death toll and mounting carnage.

If you are not in support of that, and you don't "support the troops" and you suffer at the hands of pirates and their accomplices, don't dismay. At least you can thank heaven that you're not a chaplain!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Election Day


Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Marketing the Election

Oct 31, 2004, 02:27

If the up-and-down swings in the presidential polls have left you dizzy, maybe you should look at the political betting shops instead. They're volatile, too, but they tend to be more accurate than most polls.

People answering pollsters' questions have no particular reason to be truthful, even if they do know their own minds, while people who have real money on the line have good reason to make thoughtful and informed decisions about what is likely to happen.

Since 1988, the Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa has operated the Iowa Electronic Market, which among other issues tracks the presidential race. As of Friday, contracts for a Bush win were trading about 6 cents above contracts for a Kerry win. The spread was wider for a while in September, but has consistently favored Bush since the end of August.

There's a separate contract for share of the popular vote, and it is saying that the vote is likely to be agonizingly close. But we knew that.

The Iowa market is tiny, though, because traders are limited to an investment of $500 under federal rules on commodities trading. It's a research tool, not a gambling venue. So a lot of the betting action has moved to an Irish site,, which does trade sports but will allow people to bet on pretty much anything they want to, including politics.

Two researchers, Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and Eric Zitzewitz of the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, asked tradesports to create contracts that allowed people to bet on a combination of events - for instance, that Bush would win and that Osama bin Laden would be captured before Oct. 31. The difference between the price of those contracts and the one for a Bush win alone shows that the market believed that bin Laden's capture would lift Bush's re-election chances to 91 percent. At the time, the standard Bush contracts were trading at $66.60.

As of Friday, bettors at tradesports were estimating Bush's chances of winning at 51 percent, and his share of the popular vote at 51.5 percent.

Betting on elections is nothing new, as Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf, of the economics department at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, have written. In fact, before scientific polling became common, newspapers followed the odds as they covered the election.

To read the rest, click this link:

Got comments? Email me, dammit!