We are Shackleford

To Hell with John Galt! I am Rusty shackleford, and so are you!

Exactly how “private” are Catholic Charities?

Reason really held true to their name on this article, “Separating Church and State Money.” I’d really like to here what Christian Conservatives have to say about this. Is there any defense that they can really make to defend reaching reaching into the welfare cooky jar?

Many claim how the Catholic church is one of the largest providers of “private” charity. According to the Reason article,

"The total amount of tax money involved is hard to determine. But Catholic Charities affiliates, for example, received more than 60 percent of their budgets (nearly $3 billion) from government sources in 2010, while only 3 percent came from diocesan church contributions"

How can Catholic charities be considered  “private” when 60% of their money is from the state?

Counter-Economics and Taxation

A theory I offer to my anti-tax friends (especially the left-libertarians)

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine and made a pretty interesting method of tax protest. I’m sure many see where this is going. Being that up to 50% of one’s adjusted gross income can be deducted, why not give that money to private charities?

  1. It’s 50% less of your money that the state

  2. While its not reducing anyone’s tax burden, it ensuring that ones money is actually doing some good-rather than paying for bombs or the drug war.

  3. One actually has the potential to see their money go to work, if they donate locally.

This would definitely be a long term goal, but think of the implication if a large amount of people did this. 

The party, that knows how to throw a party

The party, that knows how to throw a party

Another co-creation between revolutionarydecadence and myself. It was really more his idea, but seeing as I’m a capitalist and have the meme generator app (i.e means of production) I’m going exploit his idea and take a portion of the credit. =p

Another co-creation between revolutionarydecadence and myself. It was really more his idea, but seeing as I’m a capitalist and have the meme generator app (i.e means of production) I’m going exploit his idea and take a portion of the credit. =p

Deadend Debate



Deadend couldn’t be more wrong by saying that Paul does not believe in having army. In fact, I do not think words exist to personify the degree of which he is mistaken. I’m not an avid Paul fan, but he couldn’t be more right about our interventionist foreign policy, and Uganda is the perfect example of it.  For the record, Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he’s a non-interventionist. There are pretty significant differences.

The Ugandan government is no better than Joseph Kony, I guess there wasn’t a trendy documentary about who they were planning on killing LGBTs.

At the very least, Ron’s right about a few things

1. Our Interventions end in failures that have been highly costly in human lives, either that our we prop up a repressive regime (Iran, Burma, Chile, and so on)

2.  Most of the world realizes this and do not want us involved in their affairs, this is most noted in Chalmers Johnson’s book Blowback, the New York Time has also reported the same thing.





What happened to liberals being anti-war

Everyone knows how much I care about Uganda, but this shit is so true and I still cry over Ron Paul’s unpopularity.

It’s not that Ron Paul is anti-war, it’s that he doesn’t think there should be any sort of army or government, and that the USA should drift towards isolationism. Ron Paul doesn’t give a fuck about Uganda and that capitalism will solve it.

I’m not a Ron Paul fan.

Shit, I had Ron Paul confused with another dude.  What I meant was that whenever Ron Paul says something I agree with, he is coming at it from a completely different direction from me.  But also fuck you in your fucking ass for your tone and being a cunt. “I guess there wasn’t a video..” fuck right off.

     No worries Deadend everyone makes mistakes. But in regards to your attitude…….

The same goes for you too 0c0steen

How about a round of applause for honesty.

(Source: irs.gov)

Just to add to my last post…

I do firmly believe taxes should be lowered to the most applicable point, and most (if not all) should ultimately be phased out.  How likely is this? Eh… not very. Overall though, my last post was not to disprove or undermine libertarian arguments against taxation, but rather to point out that when we say we’re fighting for economic and social freedom, because they’re the same thing, we really just end up forgetting about civil liberties

Also thanks for the reblogs and nice comments

Personal Freedom and Economic Freedom are not the same

While its arguable that they are interdependent, they are not the same, and libertarians ought to stop treating them as such. Of course this is not to say that we should accept economic coercion, but do consider these thoughts though.

1. While taxation is arguably theft, simply lowering or getting rid of it all together will not safe guard individual liberties. The Cato Institutes former Director William Arthur Niskanen authored multiple empirical studies, showing the “starving the beast” argument doesn’t work. This is understandable when the state can also barrow and create money.

2. Economic freedom could more accurately be described as “economic opportunity,” as my rights to think, do, and buy certain things are not being restricted, it is actually my ability. Similar to the Nozickian theory on private discrimination, if a pizza restaurant was to decide not serve bearded young men, my freedom to eat pizza would not be restricted, my opportunity would. I could still go eat pizza elsewhere or even make my own. So if one’s economic opportunity is restricted, perhaps they can’t buy the new ipad or go to the beach, and maybe they have to settle for a honda instead of porsche, but their freedom to potentially own those things still exist. Though at a point, the restriction of opportunity can become synonymous with restrictions of liberty. This is a good reason libertarians should fear corporate collusion. 

3. One has an easier time over coming economic adversity than social oppression. One might tax dodge, enter into black or gray markets, or even take a different type of job. Ultimately, they will work harder to keep more money. In terms of civil liberties, there are no equivalent to working for cash or tax loopholes.

 Obviously we shouldn’t have to choose, but by nature people tend to get more worked up about economics because there is a numerical value they can see. They see their pay checks are less while prices continue to rise. Don’t get me wrong these are still problematic, but what people don’t see are their losses in liberty, because coercion has no numerical or monetary value.