Rand Paul

Rand Paul Calls For Sustainable Government, Environment at Reagan Library Speech



Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) made a visit to Silicon Valley this week. And last night, he stopped by the Reagan library for a speech. Here are a couple of snippets from this morning's reports. 

On the size of government, via The Washington Times:

"Sometimes conservatives get tagged as being against all government," Mr. Paul told an audience packed with supporters as well as skeptics at the Reagan Library here, an hour northeast of Los Angeles.

"I'm not against all government. I'm actually for $2.6 trillion dollars worth," he said.  "I'm for spending what comes in, but nothing in excess of what comes in."

On the environment, via Politico:

"I am a libertarian-conservative who spends most of my free time outdoors," Paul said during his 30-minute speech in Simi Valley, Calif. "I bike and hike and kayak. I compost. I plant trees. In fact, I have a giant Sequoia I'm trying to grow in Kentucky.

"Republicans care just as deeply about the environment as Democrats but we also care about jobs," he added. "We want common sense regulations to be balanced with economic growth and jobs."

To be sure, Paul also offered strong support for fracking in his speech. He said California's economy would be in much better shape if it did not restrict the controversial practice.

"So while California languishes, economies in states like North Dakota and Texas are booming," he said.

On the Republican party coalition, also via Politico:

"When the Republican Party looks like the rest of America, we will win again," the Kentucky senator told a crowd in Simi Valley, Calif. "When we have people with tattoos and without tattoos, with ties and without ties, with suits and in blue jeans, then we win nationally."

…"If we want to win nationally again, we will have to reach out to a diverse nation and welcome African Americans, Asians, Latinos into our party," he said. "Latinos will come to the GOP when we treat them with dignity, when we embrace immigrants as hard workers who are an asset to our country."

Reason on Rand Paul here

NEXT: Baylen Linnekin on a Raw Milk Victory in Wisconsin

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. $2.6T seems too large to me, but it is a very good start.

    1. Pretty sure it’s $1.4T smaller than what we have now.

      1. I said a very good start, didnt I?

        1. I’m only agreeing.

          1. Stop arguing!

            1. Break it up!

      2. It’s more that we spent in 2001. Remember that year? All those old folks dying in the streets and such.

  2. “When we have people with tattoos and without tattoos, with ties and without ties, with suits and in blue jeans, then we win nationally.”

    No skirts though. Bitches go vote for someone else.

    1. Bitches ain’t nothin but hoes and tricks, so of course the GOP doesn’t want them.

    2. I have a tie tattooed on my skin so hopefully they’re ok with shirts and without shirts, too.

      1. No shoes, no shirt, no suffrage.

    3. Bitches are allowed to vote now? No wonder we’re broke.

  3. Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18, NIV (bolding mine)

    1. 10% of GDP seems like a bargain
    2. “Fuck off, slavers” is shorter

    1. What’s a “perfumer?”

      1. Im assuming someone who manufactures and applies perfume for the King.

    2. The way I look at it, the Bible says to give ten percent to the church/temple, why does the government get more then God? The worst case scenario Samuel presents is a ten percent tax. The serfs of the middle ages only owed ten percent to their lord.

      When did government start asking for more than ten percent? I think it’s when people started worshiping government as their God.

      1. And when the state sought to replace God with itself. I realize there’s folks here who believe in non-God, but I firmly believe this is the real issue and that the only solution is spiritual. if you read the bible from front to back, you’ll find the common thread throughout is that the only just government is of God, that God delegated rulership to his son Jesus, and then Jesus will return and smite ALL world governments that exist on earth. Pretty awesome if you think about it.

  4. Sounds like a solid plan to me dude. Wow.


    1. See, even anonbot agrees!

  5. Liking a politician gives me a greasy feeling.

  6. Heh, it’s pretty amusing to hear him using statists own catch phrases against them. Who dares argue against “common sense”?

    1. We that prefer “reasonable measures” won’t stand for your bigoted common sense!

      1. I think it’s important to find a balance between KPres and Joe M, in the name of fairness.

        1. Compromise is indistinguishable from appeasement.

  7. I have a giant Sequoia I’m trying to grow in Kentucky.


    I hope he’s got his paperwork in order.

    1. Paul’s Benghazi?

      It’s been planted. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. It was just a few rogue, low-level gardeners.

        1. “Illegal immigrants!”

    2. That sequoia will never grow in Kentucky. Hell, they only grow in a very narrow region, with a very specific climate in California. But good luck to the good Senator.

      1. It might be possible to grow a giant Sequoia somewhere in Kentucky, near a well-watered mountaintop that gets lots of cold weather.

        At lower elevations where the Senator prolly lives, parasitical species will kill a sequoia.

        1. Bowling Green is at 547 ft.

          I dont know if that is bottom or top of hill or an average.

          1. WKU is on top of the hill, which is apparently the highest point in south-central KY.

            So, not that high.

      2. Except that they have been grown all over the world. For example, Germany: http://www.giant-sequoia.com/g…..e/germany/

        1. Googled it — basically, they need a rainy, cool climate like that of the Pac NW (or the CA mountainous regions where they originated). Dunno is Bowling Green, KY is cool enough to stave off insects inhibiting growth or outright killing, but maybe one can struggle along there:


      3. They grow well in Western Oregon but Kentucky it’s going to be tough

  8. Caption:

    “At no time do my fingers leave my hand.”

    1. The are…FOUR FINGERS!

  9. Fucking ingrates.

    At times, the attacks on Mr. Bloomberg have been strikingly personal.

    Online commentators have branded him the “anti-gun bigot Bloomberg” and, on an extremist white nationalist Web site, a commenter used an anti-Semitic slur to describe the mayor’s policies, referring to his religion.

    At a recent meeting of the National Rifle Association, the conservative commentator Glenn Beck unveiled an image of Mr. Bloomberg that had been manipulated so that he was striking the same pose as Lenin once did in Soviet propaganda. “He wants to control every aspect of your life,” Mr. Beck declared.

    He just wants to make the world a better place, you ignorant fools!

    1. Now, the vitriol has seemingly turned criminal.

      The authorities on Thursday detailed the contents of two letters laced with the deadly poison ricin, one addressed to Mr. Bloomberg and the other to an office of a gun advocacy group that he founded.

      Can you say “false flag“, kids? Good; I knew you could.

    2. “a commenter used an anti-Semitic slur to describe the mayor’s policies, referring to his religion.”

      They called him a statist? How is that anti-Semitic?

    3. Ye gads! Some white nationalist on the Internet slurred a Jewish person!

      1. Yes, but that Jew-hating White Nationalist disagrees with Bloomberg about “gun control”, so all who disagree with Bloomberg on gun control are Jew-hating White Nationalists.

        See how that works?

        1. It’s as if journalists never had to identify common fallacies in their ivory-tower university.

      2. Oh that’s not the half of it. I saw a comment on YouTube that accused the good mayor of being an alien warlord with a secret plan to enslave us all in underground gold mining operations. Can you believe these teathuglicans?

    4. At times, the attacks on Mr. Bloomberg have been strikingly personal.

      I suppose one should expect that when one attacks the “personal” liberties of others.

      1. Well, you know, it could be phrased in a civilized manner:
        ‘Please understand, we mean nothing personal, you slimy turd.’

    5. Ah, the supposedly progressive NYT rushing to the defense of Michael “Stop-and-Frisk” Bloomberg. I guess they’re willing to sacrifice their own-civil libertarianism if that’s what it takes to block Republican civil-libertianism. That’s how compromise works!

      1. No, that’s not how compromise works. The way it works is the NYT is willing to compromise on your rights so long as they get to keep theirs.

    1. Ms. Walker, the author of “The Color Purple,” wrote in her own open letter that, though she and Ms. Keys had never met, “I believe we are mutually respectful of each other’s path and work.” Ms. Walker continued: “It would grieve me to know you are putting yourself in danger (soul danger) by performing in an apartheid country that is being boycotted by many global conscious artists.”

      1. SOUL DANGER

        When Tyrone “Action” Jackson gets in trouble with the Man, he finds danger. But, don’t worry! This cat got soul, baby! Soul Danger! The Man is gonna find out how dangerous a brotha with soul is, this summer, in Soul Danger!

        Coming to a Theater or drive-in near you…Summer 1976

        1. That was some fancy-ass bass playin’.

          I want that shit playing when I walk down the street.

          1. You gotta perfect your “pimp limp”; after that, the soundtrack shall spontaneously appear.

            1. I want a pimp limb so bad-motherf-shut your mouth-ingly rock solid that I put the old ladies in soul danger with my stroll.

              1. Oops, you probably don’t want to know about my pimp limb.

            2. I want Fishbone to be my soundtrack band.


              1. Nice to see that Angelo Moore(?) and I share the same fashion sense.

                Now get together your shit and move your ass to a proper toilet….

      2. It should also be noted that Alice Walker believes that Jews are alien lizard people bent on world conquest.

        No, that’s not a joke or hyperbole. Walker is a openly card-carrying member of the David Icke “Whitney Houston was SACRIFICED by the ILLUMINATI for the Jubilee of the Queen Elizabeth!!!!” probably suffering from paranoid schizophrenia crowd.

        1. Doesn’t one of our resident trolls post under the Alice Walker pseudonym?

          1. What makes you think it’s a pseudonym?

          2. Maybe Alice Bowie?

            1. Alice Bowie’s not here, man.

              1. I was never a fan of Alice Bowie. But I did like her work with Tin Machine. Go figure!

        2. That was the worst damn conspiracy theory I’ve ever seed.

          Good conspiracy theories have a tinge of probability, but this was just crazy. It wouldn’t even make a good movie.

          1. Who are we going to believe: you or Stephen Hawkings?

            I rest my case.

        3. It should also be noted that Alice Walker believes that Jews are alien lizard people bent on world conquest.

          She thinks that Valerie Jarrett is a Jew??

          Now that’s crazy.

          1. Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran to American parents James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman. Her father, a pathologist and geneticist, ran a hospital for children in Shiraz in 1950, as part of a program where American physicians and agricultural experts sought to help jump-start developing countries’ health and farming efforts.

            Ok, I’m not saying, for certain, that Jarrett was bred in a CIA lab as part of an experiment to create a Reptilian-Human hybrid, but….

        4. It should also be noted that Alice Walker believes that Jews are alien lizard people bent on world conquest.

          That link … wow.

      3. Alicia Keys said on Friday that she is going forward with a July 4 performance in Tel Aviv that has drawn calls from other artists to cancel as part of a larger cultural boycott of Israel.

        Mkay. I was under the impression that the Hollywood (read “artists”) crowd were to a large extent Jewish and therefore pro-Israel.

        So musicians are anti-Israel? A political rift between left coast performers?

        Beep. Beep. Bada beep beep. Norman coordinate. Beep. Beep Boooooooooooooooooo…

        1. We’re perfectly happy to let the “talent” indulge in their little “causes.” It’s cute. And we’re broad-minded.

          1. And it was bad press when we told the damn commies we weren’t going to pay them for their propaganda.

        2. It’s strange. The left has always been heavily Jewish, and was very pro-Israel up until the 1980s, roughly. Around then, many of them shifted to a pro-Palestinian stance, for reasons I can’t quite fathom. It’s not as if the Palestinians became less violently anti-Jewish. Maybe it had something to do with the rise of pro-Israel Republicans and Christians.

          1. Probably had something to do with Israel’s close relationship with apartheid South Africa.

      4. From Alice Walker’s blog:

        “Earlier I wrote that David Icke reminded me of Malcolm X. I was thinking especially of Malcolm’s fearlessness. A fearlessness that made him seem cold, actually, though we know he wasn’t really. All that love of us that kept driving him to improve our lot; often into quite the wrong direction, but I need not go into that. What I was remembering was how he called our oppressors “blue eyed devils.” Now who could that have been? Well, we see them here in David Icke’s book as the descendants of the reptilian race that landed on our sweet planet the moment they could get a glimpse of it through the mist that used to cover it (before there was a moon). No kidding. Deep breath! Yes, before there was a moon! (Oh, I love the moon; can I keep it? Please?). Anyway, there they came, these space beings (we’re space beings too, of course, not to forget that). But they looked?. different than us. And they were.”

        Yes, Alice Walker believes that the world is secretly run by the lizard people. She is a big fan of David Icke.

        I think not being endorsed by her would be a big plus.

        1. Walker should collaborate with Dan Brown before succumbs to the effects of the racism we’re beaming into her house from our libertarian base on the moon.

    2. Of course Heroic Mulatto says Alicia Keys is even hotter…Racist!

      Anyway, she’s not really as sane as you may have been led to believe…


      1. I notice that that article appeared spontaneously in today.com. It has no author, it just appeared out of thin air.

  10. Beat that drum harder.

    American politicians ducking the need for gun safety should be as responsible in the face of tragedy as the new study group, known as the Hartford Consensus. It formed after the December rampage at Newtown in which a gunman murdered 20 children and six school employees in a matter of minutes. According to The Hartford Courant, doctors from the United States Navy and the F.B.I. and officers from several urban police forces convened in April to follow up on a recommendation from the American College of Surgeons that first responders be better prepared. The recommendation followed a mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., that left 12 people dead and 58 wounded last July.

    I wonder if they brought in anybody from Chicago?

    1. “…politicians ducking the need for gun safety …”

      See, I got that far and thought “FUCK YOU NYT”.

    2. What a terrible name. The People’s Democratic Consensus for Peace would be much better.

  11. Derp

    But there’s more. Why is our economy depressed? Because many players in the economy slashed spending at the same time, while relatively few players were willing to spend more. And because the economy is not like an individual household ? your spending is my income, my spending is your income ? the result was a general fall in incomes and plunge in employment. We desperately needed (and still need) public policies to promote higher spending on a temporary basis ? and the expansion of food stamps, which helps families living on the edge and let them spend more on other necessities, is just such a policy.

    Indeed, estimates from the consulting firm Moody’s Analytics suggest that each dollar spent on food stamps in a depressed economy raises G.D.P. by about $1.70 ? which means, by the way, that much of the money laid out to help families in need actually comes right back to the government in the form of higher revenue.


    But I wonder whether even Republicans really believe that story ? or at least are confident enough in their diagnosis to justify policies that more or less literally take food from the mouths of hungry children. As I said, there are times when cynicism just doesn’t cut it; this is a time to get really, really angry.

    Fucking Rethuglitards; they’re worse than Atilla the Hun.

    1. Indeed. I’m “really, really angry” that part of my paycheck goes to sustain the faux-indigent lifestyle of Ghetto/Trailer Mom with her eight kids by 10 different baby-daddies, where due to not having to find gainful employment, nor developing any sort of marketable skill (other than fellatio) in which she could use to engage in entrepreneurship. As a quasi-sentient, morbidly obese piece of human waste, Ghetto/Trailer Mom spends her days sleeping in until 10 AM, after which, she spends her time sitting on the couch, eating government cheese and smoking while watching shit like the Maury Show. Of course, her children, are devoid of any upbringing whatsoever, and spend their days in an environment lacking any sort of intellectual enrichment or moral instruction.

      1. Damn, dude. I didn’t know you were such a racist.

    2. “And because the economy is not like an individual household ? your spending is my income, my spending is your income ? the result was a general fall in incomes and plunge in employment.”

      He skipped the part where his solution involves raising prices, so that these lower incomes have even less purchasing power (making the average person poorer), whereas our solution lets prices fall, so that the lower incomes retain the same purchasing power they had before and nobody is harmed.

      Yet somehow Keynesians think their solution is the “progressive” one.

      1. Your solution involves no proactive approach. Letting markets find equilibrium is by definition unprogressive.

        1. Why achieve progressive ends with unprogressive-sounding solutions, when you can instead not achieve progressive ends with progressive-sounding solutions? Clearly, the latter is what’s necessary to me feel all righteous and superior inside.

          1. Exactly. Don’t think, emote.

    3. “Indeed, estimates from the consulting firm Moody’s Analytics suggest that each dollar spent on food stamps in a depressed economy raises G.D.P. by about $1.70 ? which means, by the way, that much of the money laid out to help families in need actually comes right back to the government in the form of higher revenue.”

      No it doesn’t. People on food stamps don’t pay taxes. It would only come back in revenue if that extra $.70 of GDP ended up in the hands of rich people, which, incidentally, it does (and not just any rich people, but rich bankers, ie, those that most leftards think contribute nothing to the real economy).

      1. I think the editorial meant the money went to the grocer and upstream makers & marketers of food, who pay income taxes on that income, and/or that it went to the other businesses that poor people could then afford to spend money on, with the same effect.

        I’d want to see how Moody’s kept from double counting that income.

        Anyway, for food “stamps” to have any of their ostensibly intended effects (feeding the poor, increasing profits farmers), they must shift some prod’n from other goods & services to food, and/or shift money (and hence goods) from savings to food prod’n. When you follow the goods & services instead of the money, it looks like no gain.

    4. Indeed, estimates from the consulting firm Moody’s Analytics suggest that each dollar spent on food stamps in a depressed economy raises G.D.P. by about $1.70

      You see? All you have to do is give away money and Presto! Instant GDP increase!

      Never mind the money is being printed and that goods do not magically appear just because people keep fanning money in front of producers – both things = inflation.

      1. But this is what Keynesian expansionism is based on: the assumption that people save too much. When you realize that saving is a valuable function because it keeps capital from being over-committed and allows it more flexibility to flow into profitable avenues when opp’ties present, you see the flaw in that assumption. There’s no good evidence I know of that people are too conservative when they invest; it’s just an assumption based on psychology that they hold back more as individuals, when if they invested more, the economy would be more productive.

      2. You see? All you have to do is give away money and Presto! Instant GDP increase!

        Hey, it works for CATO’s immigration analysis.

    5. President Comacho:

      Step 1: Spend eleventy trillion dollars on foodstamps so no one has to pay for their own food!

      Step 2: Profit!

    6. I started to write some critiques of that article from what you posted P Brooks, then decided to read it in full. I clicked on your link. The first thing I saw was Krugman’s face. I read nothing, just hissed ” Oh, fuck this” as I closed the window.

      If Pauly Krugnuts is an economist with a clue, I am a fish on a bicycle. In fact, I am not sure he is a real person. He is probably just a cartoon caricature of a person.

      1. Schwinn or Specialized?

  12. eating government cheese and smoking while watching shit like the Maury Show.

    Shows punctuated, of course, by commercials offering assistance in boarding the Social Security Disability gravy train.

    “And no fee until your benefits begin!”

  13. “If we [Republicans] want to win nationally again….”

    I suppose by “nationally” he just means a presidential election. Rand Paul doesn’t have a crystal ball more than anyone else does. It’s impossible to call presidential elections years out. The Republicans, averaged over the nation, are doing fine in elections. The presidential election in the long run is subject to factors that for all practical purposes can be considered luck. Anything “the Republicans” (or “the Democrats”) do, if it affects such factors at all, are as likely to have the opposite effect as the effect any of us would predict. Statements of an if-then nature as they affect the presidential election are worthless. Even if they do enhance the chance of winning a particular election, they’re just as likely due to knock-on effects to enhance the chance of losing the next or the following ones in the cycle.

    1. Presidential elections have become popularity contests, we elect a celebrity in chief. Almost no one cares about any particular policy position enough to change their vote based on proposals from a candidate. It’s identity politics all the way down for the bases of both (all) parties with the mushy middle swinging back and forth based on who’s cool, or hip or has the most buzz.

      Anyone that wants to be president should keep that in the front of their thinking at all times.

      1. Salient post of the day. To be president, you just gotta impress the plebes.

        1. Pretty soon, in order to become President you will have had to release a well-reviewed sex tape.

  14. The problem is that $2.6T worth of government costs $4T.

    1. But how else can you get $2.6T worth of government? Answer me that one.

    2. I believe your value estimate is too high. Please show your work.

    1. There is no such state as “Rhode Island”; however, there is a “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations”.

      Jus’ sayin’

      Now drink some coffee milk; it’s good!

      1. Plantations? RACISSSTT!!!

        1. Well, duh! It’s Rhode Island.

          1. “Rhode”. Like…. JIM Rhodes? A BLACK man? Racist AND unpatriotic.

            1. No, like Rhodesia.

            2. “Rhode”. Like…. JIM Rhodes? A BLACK man? Racist AND unpatriotic.

              No, as in Cecil – racist super villain.

  15. Of course, you can’t be concerned with the environment if you also support fracking. Fracking, and the product of it, are obviously destructive of the environment. No argument supporting this is necessary. It is known.

    1. The science is settled!!11!

    2. How could anything called “fracking” not be bad???

    3. Wells are catching fire. Great geysers of flame what come out of previously potable water sources like them burning oil derricks what Saddam set alight back in Desert Storm.

      1. Heh. I had a great-aunt who used to light her water faucets on fire back in the late 60’s. There was no fracking then, and not an oil well within miles of her.

        I googled the flaming faucet bit and, just as I suspected, people had been lighting their faucets on fire since the mid 1930’s in the area where the docufakery ‘Gasland’ was made.

        If you have to lie or hide evidence to make your case then maybe your case isnt worth making.

    4. I saw the movie Gasland and it gave me an unbiased look at the industry

      1. +1 fair and balanced

    5. Unsupported assertion is…uh…unsupported.

      Watch carefully –

      I hunt and fish and garden and I grow timber. I planted almost a million trees last february. I am very concerned about the environment for many personal and economic reasons.

      I fully support fracking as there is no evidence whatsoever that it harms the environment and will give us, in all likelihood, energy independence. No argument is necessary to support this position.

    6. Stupidity or sarcasm, you be the judge.

      1. I’m going with sarcasm. “It is known” is a giveaway.

        Of course, that phrase being identified with sarcasm came from people using it seriously, so I guess there’s a small chance he’s simply a moron.

    7. “It is known” said Jhiqui

  16. 25 trees a minute, 24 hours per day for 28 straight days? I’m betting you didn’t use a garden trowel!

    … Hobbit

  17. Another classic piece of derp from my facebook page:

    New technology has many ways of reducing, often completely eliminating, jobs from total workforce.


    Then this series of comments was exchanged:

    Andi: photography is an excellent example of the obsolescence of old technology as well as its negative effects on people.

    Brett: It’s only a negative effect in a capitalist economy, where jobs are eliminated. In an economy based on cooperation, collaboration, and mutual support, tech makes our lives better! And it’s not about obsolete technology?this story is really about jobs becoming obsolete. We live in an era of abundance, yet capitalism can only operate with scarcity. The blame shouldn’t fall on technology, but on capitalism itself. The fact is that iPhones have great, albeit limited cameras. And photography has been greatly democratized by the reduction of cost and increased ease of making an image.

    Sometimes it seems like he’s so close…and then he shows how far away he is.

    1. capitalism can only operate with scarcity

      Um, what?

      1. He’s correct in assuming that an endless supply of resources would change the dynamic completely. He’s just completely off his rocker in thinking that we live in a post-scarcity society. Last I checked we do not have an unlimited production capacity.

        1. There will always be a (relative) scarcity of some things, even if only time, real estate, and seats in the hottest restaurants. But I think my main objection is: “As opposed to what?” Or to put it another way: “Your socialist utopia can only operate in some imaginary world.”

          1. I just think it’s funny that he says that technology permanently removes jobs from the total workforce. He’s basically saying we are headed towards massive unemployment because of technology — even though the last 150+ years of AMAZING technological advancement have disprove this hypothesis.

            1. Yeah well, that bit of idiocy is as old as civilization.

          2. I had this discussion with my uncle. He seems to believe this as well. I told him we’re not there until we get Star Trek- style replicators.

    2. It’s only a negative effect in a capitalist economy, where jobs are eliminated. In an economy based on cooperation, collaboration, and mutual support…

      Yep, fantasy beats reality 100% of the time.

      Oh, and “tech makes our lives better!” in all economies, but free markets incentivize the creation of new technologies and socialist fantasy economies don’t.

  18. Who the heck does that dude think he is?


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.