Was George Washington a Model Entrepreneur?
Author Edward Lengel on how Washington's business acumen shaped America.
George Washington's exploits as both a politician and general are well known, but should he be equally recognized as a businessman? According to author Edward Lengel, the answer is an unqualified yes. In his new book, First Entrepreneur: How George Washington Built His–and the Nation's–Prosperity, Lengel makes the case that Washington's business acumen and economic principles are just as important to understanding the man and the country he helped form.
"He was a big believer in individuals creating their own wealth by virtue of their own hard work," says Lengel. "He took those principles and applied them to the country as a whole as President. He believed that what he did at Mount Vernon was a microcosm of what other entrepreneurs could do for America."
By embracing innovation, eschewing debt, and diversifying his revenue streams, Washington was able to grow the estate he inherited into a flourishing self-sustaining enterprise. Like many, he came to believe that an unfettered America could become just as prosperous.
"Americans–and Washington in particular–believed in the early 1770s that we would soon be able to produce for ourselves agriculturally, we would be able to produce manufacturing and industry, and the only thing that prevented that were British restrictions to entrepreneurship."
Legel recently sat down with Reason TV to discuss Washington's views on commerce, whether his use of slaves at Mount Vernon should disqualify him as an entrepreneurial role model, and what lessons we can learn from Washington's economic vision.
"The principles that Washington believed in, in terms of personal entrepreneurship, in terms of national economic policy, work and industry, are absolutely relevant today. By writing this book I am trying to set those before Americans to realize that these are basic principles that really we need to return to as much as we can."
Approximately 10 minutes.
Produced and Edited by Meredith Bragg. Camera by Joshua Swain and Amanda Winkler.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Washington was a fucking cronycrat, whiskey war shithead!
His military incompetence and moral deficiency triggered the horribly costly French and Indian War, which is why the British crown sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. One of the most amazing things about the American Revolution is how they won despite having George Washington.
Hillbillys and long rifles, guerrilla warfare tactics.
Most of the major conflicts in Rev war were in the tradition of typical European style tactics. Also the British themselves had light infantry and ranger units operating in more "guerrilla" warfare style tactics.
I don't think you can pin the French and Indian War, more accurately described as the North American theater of the Seven Years' War, on Washington. Unless Washington was actually the mastermind behind the Austrian/Prussian conflict.
YOU LEAVE GEORGE WASHINGTON ALONE
HE NEVER TOLD A LIE
The Whiskey Rebellion was nothing more nor less than the first attempt by mental midgets, as one finds here, of trying to avoid their responsibility to the US of A.
They were thieves of the worst sort who demanded that everyone else pay their way. Just like REASON, Chuck and Davie Koch and all the rest of you who steal from the Producers and give to the Takers.
He'll hire children but not the British children.
+ a fucking ton
If Washington were any good at all, we would have built this nation on limey orphan slaves.
"He was a big believer in individuals creating their own wealth by virtue of their own hard work,"
Buying slaves was hard work?
Looking at the economics of slavery makes me a little skeptical George was such a whiz in that area.
Slavery is, of course, an evil enterprise but it is likely not easy. I would think that it takes one-on-one supervision, for one thing. And then the slaves must be cared for like any other work animal. Slaves are an investment, after all.
This.
It bears repeating that slavery is not the massive profit bonanza that it's made out to be.
"But it's FREE labor!! How can it not be profitable?"
Because the labor is not actually free. First, you have to buy the actual slave, which may have costed $12,000 to $176,000.. Second, you have to devote some of your land to their housing and maybe let them grow some of their own food. Third, you have the choice of either providing them with some modicum of medical treatment or replacing them every time they die. Finally, there is the risk of runaways and rebellions.
Of course, you could try to breed the slaves so that you would never have to buy any more, but then you run the risk of getting a girl (really only suitable for housework or light field work) when what you wanted was a strong male field hand (or vise versa). You also have to ensure that the child is well fed until they are old enough to start doing serious work.
You left out the most important part, namely that workers that don't work for their own benefit don't work very productively. Adam Smith already pointed that out. Europeans gave up slavery and feudalism not because of any moral superiority, but because it made no economic sense anymore.
Washington made his money the old-fashioned way.
He married it.
Ornithorhynchus --- Sshh, the Lie-Bart-Aryans don't like being faced with Truth.
IN WHICH someone named "Gillespie" makes the argument that Bernie Sanders is the 'most libertarian candidate'
Liberty Union party. See, it says "liberty" right there in the name. Clearly, the man's been trying to free us, all this time.
I would have let it pass if the writer had not made the claim of "Small Government Credentials" in his opener.... but then listed zero actual small-govt policies, and instead seems to suggest that 'offering nice-words about civil liberties' at times is more than sufficient to burnish his bona fides.
e.g.
"Even libertarian stalwart Ron Paul has come out in support of Sanders' small-government credentials, shortly after his son, Rand, left the Republican race.
Bernie has espoused positions similar to Rand's, even joining with him to 1) oppose government surveillance....He supports 2) freedom of speech .... On the two issues that most strongly divide the US political scene ? 3) abortion and immigration ? Sanders has been pretty consistently on the side of less government intervention..... Bernie isn't 4) bomb-happy, either. In contrast to the hawkish Hillary, he frequently opposes American military arrogance. "
Basically, he says nice things about Free Speech while promising to overturn Citizens United (i believe it involves a magic trick)... and that's the least-polished part of the turd.
He used the phrase "libertarian socialist". Does he hear the agonized screams from the words he abuses, do you think?
Yeah, this whole left libertarian thing has always been a sort of joke.
If you insult Terry Michael enough, he'll send you a nasty email. Try it out next time he writes something stupid here.
Who is Terry Michael and where may I find him so that the insults can begin?
GRIDS! GRIDS isn't real!
Yeah, I know. It's better if we just vote for Ted Cruz, read ayn rand and hope for the best.
No, it would be best for you if you learned to use reason and logic over emoting, but that's not going to happen, is it?
No, it would be best for you if you learned to use reason and logic over emoting, but that's not going to happen, is it?
Nope. Logic and reason are hard. They lead you to conclusions that don't make you feel good. Not only that, but if a progtard does employ logic and reason, they will be ejected from their peer group. So rather than be shunned by idiots and embraced by human beings that use their brains, they choose to surround themselves with fools and live their life driven by emotion.
So, this is you coming out of the closet as Terry Michael, right?
Can you please skip to the part where you tell us why HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
No, that's stupid, just like the idea if we got rid of government we'd be better off.
Nice try, Mr. Michael.
No what is stupid is you saying 'if we got rid of government' like most libertarians advocate 'getting rid of' government. It's disingenuous bullshit in it's most blatant form.
"Take THAT, straw man!"
-- american socialist a/k/a Terry Michael
You really are a tiresome liar and builder of strawmen. As far as I can tell, there is no general affinity here for either Ted Cruz or Ayn Rand.
It's easier to argue with the strawman than to actually pay attention.
"Libertarian socialist" was a popular descriptor 30-35 yrs. ago. It was used by a spectrum ranging from left-anarchists & communitarians of various sorts to democratic socialists. It fell out of popularity around the time the USSR went kaput.
Libertarian socialism isn't so much an ideology but a strategy, rooted in the (false) belief that if you remove government coercion, people will naturally organize into a socialist/communist society.
It's the same kind of delusion that many Christian conservatives suffer from when they proclaim that they are in favor of liberty and individual rights.
What both groups actually believe is that after they have eliminated everybody who disagrees with them, the true believers can finally get on building the utopia of their choice.
1) oppose government surveillance
Bernie actually has a decent record here.
Bernie isn't 4) bomb-happy, either.
He's probably one of the better candidates on foreign intervention.
....He supports 2) freedom of speech
Bullshit. He opposes Citizens United. I bet he supports campaign finance reform, mandatory labelling requirements, hate speech laws, hostile workplace regulations, and the whole panoply of government imposition on speech by businesses and relating to politics, but I can't be arsed to do the research.
3) abortion and immigration ? Sanders has been pretty consistently on the side of less government intervention.....
Two areas that are arguably within the core of when government should intervene. If you think that, at some point, a fetus is a person, then you really can't complain about government intervention to prevent the killing of a person. Similarly, if you think that governments can legitimately control their borders, then less government intervention may (may) be an abrogation of duty. IOW, less government may or may not be per se libertarian in these areas, as millions of comments here at H&R can illustrate.
I think the point on freedom of speech is that he's for legal obscenity generally, & legal indecency in b'cast media.
So did Obama... until he got into power.
Libertarianism doesn't work that way; preventing the killing of a person isn't a license for government to engage in arbitrary coercive behavior. In fact, depending on which form of libertarianism you adopt, self-defense is a personal responsibility just like any other good.
You jest, but surely you realize that when the general election comes down to Bernie v. Trump no less than a third of the Reason editorial staff will throw their support behind the Bern.
The journey from supporting a crypto-progressive to supporting an overt socialist is not a terribly long one, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Overt socialist
Methinks it's about time we simply label him as the communist he is (with socialism being only his intermediary step in the Lenin fashion). And the "democratic" self-designation a clever disguise to make himself not seem the tyrant he'll surely be upon gaining power. Comrade Bernie honeymooned in the Soviet Union and Cuba and spent time on a Marxist-Leninist kibbutz in Israel that waxed poetic in its eulogy for Stalin a decade before his arrival there.
And we all know that virtually every Bernie policy prescription would be shot down post haste by congress. I expect him to drop the pretenses of democracy and checks and balances upon assuming power. It will be rule by executive fiat, with helpful precedent having been laid out for him by his two most recent predecessors.
And the most disturbing part of it all is that I fully expect him to both secure the Dem nomination and win the general. We are that far gone. Though I'll say that I'm at the point of embracing the collapse. Of course, some men just wanna watch the world Bern so that our phoenix may rise from the ashes.
He won't win the nom
I think that's an open question, still. It depends on the following:
(1) Hillary's health
(2) Indictments (or FBI leaks re: the lack thereof)
(3) How many votes Bernie actually collects
(4) The appetite of the Dem poobahs for a brokered convention to deny Bernie the nom
"Assuming no Acts of God/FBI"
Was implied. He won't win a single big-delegate state (maybe mass)
The super delegates will see to it that the Bern goes down in flames.
It's Hillary's turn dammit.
Yes, yes, we heard this all before re: Obama v. Hillary. "Hillary's machine is unstoppable, she has all the superdelegates" etc. etc. Sure enough Bernie doesn't have the advantage of race to drive both white guilt and minority turnout in his favor. But Hillary is devoid of any charm or accomplishments. All she has going for her is vagina. About the only demo she's winning consistently decidedly with so far is 50+ white women with incomes exceeding $200k.
Doesn't matter. He won't win the nom. This isn't 2008; Bern isn't Obama.
It isn't 2008. It's worse. 2008 was opportunistic for Obama with the cratering of the global economy immediately before the election. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar event in the next 8 months. Moreover, the "recovery" from 2008 til now left all be the most well-off and well-connected on the sidelines. Hence the emergence of the Occupy movement in 2012. The contemporary political culture is more leftist in character and more SJW/PC/Crimethink now than it was in 2008. Hence why Trump is wildly successful in the GOP field even while there are understandable concerns about his more Euro-right populist/leftist economic views.
And no, Bern is not Obama. I fully admitted that he has challenges that Obama didn't given his relative age and his race. But he faces the same opponent for the nom as Obama did, and arguably weaker given her legal issues, the fade of her aura of inevitability, and her more advanced age. And he is pitching to an electorate that is more left in character today than previously.
Obama worked because he was a blank slate with a cool voice. Bernie is not, and the polls are clear that the nom is basically Clinton's to have.
The 'leftishness' of the electorate matters but not as much as the Dem party's feelings regarding security. I imagine they are rather rattled by the rise of a fascist in the other team and the danger that they could lose the WH after doing so badly in midterms. This will likely bolster a candidate that is seen as a 'sure thing' ie Clinton, especially against a geriatric demented socialist.
If you think Bernie's going to win then you're out to lunch. Weren't you also damn sure Fauxcahontas was going to win as well?
The irony there is I see Trump absolutely spanking Hillary in a general while I see Bernie beating any GOP candidate in the field, Trump included.
If you think Bernie's going to win then you're out to lunch. Weren't you also damn sure Fauxcahontas was going to win as well?
Yes, I was. And I maintain that the fire that Bernie's campaign has caught rather unexpectedly to most is an indication of how correct I was. Fauxcahontas was the perfect combination of Hillary and Bernie: a vagina-toting communist.
But there's one thing he has going against him: He's competing vs. Trump in open primary states. That's a factor vs. Trump too. But Trump's strong enough to get the nomination anyway, while the Democrats will flock to Biden or Bloomberg or somebody as soon as Hillary crashes.
Another significant difference between 2008 and 2016 is that the "anti-war" left has come to terms with Obama's wars and learned to love them.
Despite a superabundance of legitimate criticisms of Bush's foreign policy, the "anti-war" left could not resist even the most absurd characterizations in 2008. Obama has actually bombed more countries than Bush, but the "anti-war" left remains silent.
Even if Bernie had the anti-war cred that Obama had in 2008 (he does not), it does not have the same vote-getting potential that Obama had in 2008.
If a person does a little reading on Bernnie's pre politician past there are remarkable similarities between Marx's and Bernnie's early days.
Both were failures in society and as a wage earner and both shunned work.
Both spent their early years in poverty because they refused work and just ran around bitching that people who didn't want to work shouldn't have to because there was enough wealth around that everyone else should just share theirs.
OneOut
"If a person does a little reading on Bernnie's pre politician past there are remarkable similarities between Marx's and Bernnie's early days."
But neither went Bankrupt 4 times as The Dumpster has.
1) Bern isn't winning the nom 2) A case can be made that Bern would be less dangerous than Trump.
Todd's Dad wouldn't let him join the Boy Scouts because they weren't gay enough.
Meredith, No, he was not.
I know charter schools are the bestest ever, but can anyone find me an alternative to the Success Academy? I'm looking to enroll my kids in a school where 1st graders are not required to wear ties and won't become the next Trumpist Youth. Thanks,
http://gawker.com/disturbing-v.....1758717361
Why don't you just send them to public school? It's free remember and that's where they will learn to be unthinking leftists, just like you.
No confidence in your ability to home-school them?
I am shocked, shocked! not only that a socialist has such little self-esteem, but that he has even less confidence in the socialist public school system.
All of the most multicultural supporting progs that I know move to neighborhoods where they can send their children to schools in which there is pretty much zero chance they'll ever encounter a black person. And this is of utmost importance to them. It's not that they're hypocrites, it's just that you don't understand you rat fucking bigot cracker.
I'm planning on sending both my kids to public school. The one down the street is the best one in town--private or public
If I did home school i would probably teach them that almost all wars are bullshit, that humans are capable of destroying themselves either through environmental collapse or nuclear war, and that the worst thing you can do with your life is kill someone because some politician tells you to. Is there something objectionable in that?
What do you plan on teaching your children concerning the causative factors that lead to AIDS?
In general, That it's caused by various serotypes of the HIV virus and that it is largely spread by sexual contact and that, with some notable exceptions, it wasn't mentioned by religious right-wingers because they were pretty happy if homosexuals would just die.
Ah, there's the Terry Michael we all know and hate.
As my friend frank would say... Hunh?
As my friend Gertrude would say ... The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
The SoCons will bring the wrath of gawd down on you for being gay, the progs will bring down the wrath of Gaia on you for burning fossil fuels and eating meat. What exactly the difference is here, I fail to see it.
with some notable exceptions, it wasn't mentioned by religious right-wingers
Because religion is really where I look for policy insights on epidemiology.
Because if the religious right had acknolowedged it they could've prayed it away and we'd all be fine? For someone who probably "fucking loves science" you don't seem to understand that other people talking about a disease don't really make it go away.
american socialist|2.13.16 @ 12:00PM|#
"I'm planning on sending both my kids to public school."
Good. Keep lefties stupid!
And if the education camps don't work out as intended, we'll simply send them to re-education camps.
"the worst thing that you can do with your life is to kill someone because some politician tells you to"
But to STEAL from someone because some politician tells you to, that's what really makes you a hero right?
It is difficult for me to write this, but AS is right on that one. Team Red and Team Blue sure do loves them some war.
Of course, any law contains an implied command to kill the disobedient. We have seen stories here about people killed for selling loosies, for not paying child support, for not paying parking tickets, for not having two working headlights, etc.
Someone who is intellectually honest and who actually believes "the worst thing that you can do with your life is to kill someone because some politician tells you to" would have to be a hardcore libertarian, if not an anarchist.
Well, I suspect that the "honesty" part is what trips up AS.
Eh, to me it still reveals an obsession with political motives and downplaying human nature. I'm reminded of Richman's Adam Lanza remark.
People can still be assholes without politics and the right system or lack thereof isn't going to make everything perfect
It oversimplifies and presumes no agency on the part of those who volunteer for such positions with government. The reality is that a great many of those who volunteer for such positions don't kill because the state has ordered them to, but rather because they want to kill whomever the state is asking them to kill.
If you put me within firing distance of some ISIS scumbag raping a Yazidi woman, I'll drop him faster than a PC corporation finding out its celeb mouthpiece uttered a crimethink thought about the benighted ghettos in the late 1970s. But I'm not doing it because the govt would wish me to do so, I'm doing it because the scumbag downrange of my sights is wholly deserving of being dispatched to his 72 virgins.
Good point. I've also heard that those in combat tend to focus on helping and defending the other members of their unit. Most people do not make everyday decisions based on politics and it says more about the person who has that assumption than anything else
You aren't sending your kids to a nice, inner city school? The failing kind that bigots like yourself force poor people into? Instead, you move out to a nice section of town away from all those icky poor people. Racist.
the worst thing you can do with your life is kill someone because some politician tells you to
?1 NARAL
Concern trolling in action, by amsoc:
can anyone find me an alternative to the Success Academy?
20 minutes later:
I'm planning on sending both my kids to public school.
Success Academy is a bunch of publicly-funded charter schools, I believe.
It's a typical proggie lie, exposing a kernel of truth (going to public shcool) while obscuring the practical truths (not the genuine article, but one of the reviled charter schools).
IN WHICH "WW" gets in on the turd-polishing-act
The crux of his always-highbrow argument rests on the requirement that you believe Denmark is "more free" than the USA. Because data.
Europe is a wonderland utopia where everything is free and everyone is happy. Ask any prog who's never been there if you don't believe me.
The USA is a Mad Max style wasteland ruled by mobs of machine gun toting rednecks riding around in death machines. Ask any European socialist who's never been here if you don't believe me.
I know this makes me a bad person, but this sounds awesome.
It sounds more awesome than 50% personal income tax, that's for sure.
But health care is free! College is free! So what if you have to wait for months to get medical care and your course of study is chosen for you? It's free! And everyone is equal! So what if they are equally poor? They're equal!
I want to move to that USA
To his credit he then points out that Sanders fails to actually offer any viable formula for the Denmarkification of America
"'If you want Danish levels of social spending, you need Danish middle-class tax rates and a relatively unfettered capitalist economy. The fact that he's unwilling to come out in favor of either half of the Danish formula for a viable social-democratic welfare state is the best evidence that Bernie Sanders is not actually very interested in what it takes to make social democracy work. ""
In effect he's saying that Bernie fails even the low bar be sets. But that we shouldn't sniff at social-welfare states, despite their lack of BoR protections and confiscation-economies
You can't Denmarkify America because of demographics if not for any other reason. To believe you can, you first have to suspend belief in demograhics and believe that whatever can work in a with a small very homogeneous population will also work in a huge country with a very diverse population.
whatever can work in a with a small very
whatever can work in a country with a small very...
Demography, geography, and of course that pesky constitution and its limits on federal power
Whatever. Constitution is old and inconvient to current policy goals. I mean, what the hell is a "Congrefs", anyway?
And it's own defense budget.
What's interesting is that, as the formerly homogenous Euro countries become less homogenous, support for a phat welfare state declines.
Oh, its worse than that.
While ignorant Americans worship the EU, the actual member-states think its been a raw deal and is broke in every sense
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0V908M
It's been trending that direction more or less for decades now. The fundamental reality is that a lavish welfare state requires a level of social trust and cohesion only present in almost entirely homogenous societies.
For all Bernie's talk about Scandinavia, what he actually proposes is far more akin to Latin American socialism. The thing is I think Bernie doesn't quite realize that. At his advanced age, he's not exactly much of a thinker (hence the ad nauseum references to millionaires and billionaires). Perhaps at some point in his intellectual development, he could reliably look to Scandinavia and actually think the model they held at the time (primarily late 60s/70s) was something that could be replicated here (based on utopian views of the interchangeability of people of various backgrounds). And those Scandinavian countries had govts that were more Latin American in their socialist character at the time. The problem was that even then with largely homogenous populations, it resulted in a decline in living standards and overall economic opportunity and the pendulum began swinging back to the centre-right as it did across the continent in the late 70s and 80s.
But Bernie's view has remained static in a dynamic world. What he endorses now is practically Chavismo (a great irony given Trump's more Chavismo personality). Full scale nationalization of certain industries, particularly banking and finance.
"The fundamental reality is that a lavish welfare state requires a level of social trust and cohesion only present in almost entirely homogenous societies."
Even then it does not work! Whitey socialism is no more effective than any other kind. Sweden imploded around 1990 and they've been walking away from socialism ever since.
"What's interesting is that, as the formerly homogenous Euro countries become less homogenous, support for a phat welfare state declines."
Hence the desperate for MOAR mass immigration.
It's almost like you repeated what I had said:
The problem was that even then with largely homogenous populations, it resulted in a decline in living standards and overall economic opportunity
Lavish welfare states are no more effective in homogenous societies. They are however less defective in advanced egalitarian homogenous European societies than other parts of the world (even if those other parts of the world are largely homogenous as well). Now you can proceed to call me all manner of unthinking SJW invective at your discretion.
Is Socialism making a comeback?
http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....g-comeback
If the 160+ million dead from communism in the 20th century didn't kill the socialist ideology, nothing will.
Not in Latin America. It's getting the woodchipper treatment down there.
There was an another interesting article at Cato in their latest Policy Report about the Chilean Retirement System.
Unfortunately, Chile is being ruined by the socialist currently in charge of it. A bad economy, gridlock, and some corruption have stalled a lot of her agenda, but she got some pretty awful education 'reform' passed. Still, their retirement system is better than anything in the anglo-speaking world as far as I know.
Better in the sense that everybody is guaranteed to be equally poor? You get a lot more money in the US just on minimum social security.
In fact, in absolute terms, US entitlements and benefits are pretty much the highest in the world.
I guess Venezuela isn't part of Latin America - even shortages of toilet paper won't start a revolution.
The Chavistas got their asses handed to them in the Congressional elections back in December.
Unfortunately, it wields less power than the US Congress, which is to say barely any at all. The supremo is a Chavista and the Supreme Court is packed with Chavistas.
Does Bernie actually offer any *plans*, or is it just utopian suggestions of a unified, socialist America?
The libertarian case for Bernie Sanders is simply that Bernie Sanders wants to make America more like Denmark, Canada, or Sweden ? and the citizens of those countries enjoy more liberty than Americans do. No other candidate specifically aims to make the United States more closely resemble a freer country. That's it. That's the case.
So under this standard, we can see that Muslim extremists are libertarian in that they want to make us much more like Frederic Bastiat, i.e. dead.
Bernie Sanders wants to make America more like Denmark, Canada, or Sweden ? and the citizens of those countries enjoy more liberty than Americans do
I'm going to need to know what is meant by "liberty" in this assertion. They may be more free than us in some ways, but certainly not in others.
Most of those countries are more economically free than the Land of the Free. Thing is, Bernie does not stand for economic freedom. Quite the opposite. So anything he does to make this country more like those countries will not make us more free. Again, quite the opposite.
FWIW, it looks like AEI ranks the US higher than the Scandihoovians and most Euros on economic freedom.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
No idea how valid this is.
Freedom from too many choices of deodorant!
The libertarian case for Bernie Sanders is that he is old and his bones are brittle so he's less likely to jam up the woodchipper*.
*internet joke.
Not funny,
/Secret Service
"The Libertarian Case for Socialism." I'm in.
Related: today is the first day all winter where it has been really cold, especially when the wind starts whipping. I saw so many people going in and out of the gym today that were just wearing sweatshirts, and no hats. It is comforting that we all share the same healthcare.
This is why we need common sense winter accessory legislation
That is where we are headed (get it).
What a fuckin' douchebag.
WW is a fucking joke. Didn't he drop the 'liberaltarian' mask a while back and just come out as a liberal?
Liberaltarian = liberal that wants special attention
My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I'm a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can't believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do,
....................... http://www.richi8.com
Big news, folks:
Libertarian moment not over
"Look man, that think tank just isn't going to fund itself."
This Adam Brandon man makes a better case for the LM in one column than Nick Gillespie ever has. He's also a better writer. Time for a staff chance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE
OT, a good and even-handed essay: Trump's America: There's nothing irrational about Donald Trump's appeal to the white working class, writes Charles Murray: they have every reason to be angry
"One reason that we still have poverty in the United States is that a lot of poor people are born lazy." You cannot imagine it because that kind of thing cannot be said. And yet this unimaginable statement merely implies that when we know the complete genetic story, it will turn out that the population below the poverty line in the United States has a configuration of the relevant genetic makeup that is significantly different from the configuration of the population above the poverty line. This is not unimaginable. It is almost certainly true. -Charles Murray (not this essay)
What a bullshit artist. He's also an IQ fetishist.
He's probably right, though "lazy" is too limited. Poverty and law-breaking also have a lot to do with tendencies to be violent, short-sighted, and to disregard rules, all of which can be (at least partly) driven by genetic components.
It's also true that Middle Eastern Muslims are inbred as a result of hundreds of generations of cousin marriage, and that increases birth defects and lowers IQs. It's science dude. Don't be a science denier.
" violent, short-sighted, and to disregard rules, all of which can be (at least partly) driven by genetic components."
Anything 'can' be driven by genetics. "It probably has a genetic component" is one of the laziest explanations to tack on to your thesis and I am going to start carrying rocks to hurl at speakers that say so. Murry is claiming that there IS such a link without any goddamn proof.
"It's also true that Middle Eastern Muslims are inbred as a result of hundreds of generations of cousin marriage, and that increases birth defects and lowers IQs."
Some Arab Moslems are inbred and some of them have lower IQs, and the rate of inbreeding is declining as they urbanize. Inbreeding is not the same as what Murray was talking about in any event.
Don't talk to me about science. Neither you nor anyone else in your trailer park has a shred of science literacy.
You should probably just refer him to your tumblr page
I've been paid money for my opinions on science. Have you? I live in SF and work for a Silicon Valley tech company. No trailer parks near me.
All of their investors should be taking their money and running.
Quite the opposite is happening. Maybe they know something you don't.
"we still have poverty in the United States"
Because the government subsidizes poverty, taxes work, and discourages entrapreneurship with unnecessary regulation and nonsensicle prohibitions.
Right. Because hard work has nothing to do with material and intellectual success. It's all luck and the poor just have bad luck--that's all.
Strawman AND and an irrelevant one.
just as Carl explained I'm in shock that a single mom able to profit $7856 in a few weeks on the internet . look at this website........
------- H?o?m?e-j??o?b?s?9?0.T??????k
just as Carl explained I'm in shock that a single mom able to profit $7856 in a few weeks on the internet . look at this website........
------- http://www.alpha-careers.com
Carl's not here, man.
Meanwhile, in the UK:
"Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion."
I don't have a link handy, but it looks like Turkey and Saudi Arabia are coming together to tag-team ISIS in a ground action. That's the ostensible reasoning anyway. Pretty sure their real motivations put ending ISIS in the background. Which would explain the lack of Saudi action in Iraq.
Did someone say tag team?
Yes; someone said "Tag Team".
looks like Turkey and Saudi Arabia are coming together to tag-team ISIS in a ground action.
Not going to happen
Wouldn't be prudent?
not at this juncture.
e.g.
"The Myth of the Anti-ISIS Sunni Coalition"
"Meanwhile, Saudi forces are bogged down in Yemen in a costly campaign against the Houthis that Riyadh is not prepared to abandon. It is doubtful that the kingdom would deploy troops to Syria unless they were part of a broader Gulf or U.S. effort. And if Saudi troops were sent to Syria, what if they didn't perform well? The struggle against ISIS would be damaged by the jihadis publicly defeating Arab-state Sunni forces, particularly ones backed by the West. ...
The Saudis have long been more concerned about removing Iranian ally Bashar Assad from power in Syria than they have been about directly fighting ISIS. Saudi leaders would be bitterly criticized at home if they deployed forces and were not seen as taking on the Assad regime, which has been viewed by Saudis and other Sunni Muslims as killing innocent Sunnis. Without a specific effort against Mr. Assad, who has been buoyed by Iranian and Russian support, Saudi Arabia would be accused of directly helping his ally Iran. As compelling as the idea of large numbers of Saudi ground forces fighting ISIS may seem, this is probably an idea whose time has not yet come."
The Saudis have long been more concerned about removing Iranian ally Bashar Assad from power in Syria than they have been about directly fighting ISIS.
Just like Marco Rubio!
"The headline on the ADF's press release is very revealing: "NY court: Farmers can't obey their faith in their own backyard."...
"Make no mistake that this case will ramp up efforts across the country to pass so-called "religious freedom" laws. The anti-gay right has gotten quite used to discriminating for any reason with impunity. Now that LGBT people are winning more civil rights, the anti-gay wing is doubling down on legislation that declared discrimination against LGBT people a "religious freedom." About half of the states have some kind of legislation in place. Stay tuned."
"Thomas Rusert: Why I offer "free prayer" in a coffee shop
"A pastor's first job is to "take care of our people," writes a Lutheran pastor. Sometimes, he has learned, "our people" are those we have never met."
When George Washington was a boy, he copied down a cherry tree to make himself some wooden teeth, and when his dad asked him why, he said because without teeth, he could not tell a lie.
Ohhhh, he chopped a cherry tree. I always thought he had popped some girls cherry.
If he did he wouldn't lie about it if asked.
Oh fucking no!!
Scalia found dead at Texas ranch
This will allow Obama to shift the court in his favor for his remaining time in office. Obama just left lame duck status.
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
Clik This Link inYour Browser....
? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com
Sarcasm Switch On:
RE: George Washington
I don't know if George Washington was a great entrepreneur (he did wisely grow hemp though), but he was an excellent slaver. Plus he did show his totalitarian side by putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. Gee, if only we had more slavers and oppressors in the White House today, our country would be a better place to live.
Sarcasm Switch Off
Yahoo CEO, Marissa Meyer has gone som far as to Support the practice "Work at home" that I have been doing since last year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.
Clik This Link inYour Browser.......
? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com
The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.
Forward to 2016. Tommy is in the rape cage for not having a 'play pinball while blind' license.
You should have linked to this video instead.
The pinball owner is right there too for having a fully ADA compliant machine. Irrelevant if Tommy could play it or not.
+ 30 goddamn dicks