Friday, January 20, 2012

Only the Brain Dead And Illiberal Minded Are For Banning Things

Statist idiot Bill O'Reilly was pontificating the other day about how evil Ron Paul is because Paul wants to end the Federal drug war. Paul's main point in the segment of debate O'Really was talking about was the unjust incarceration of minorities in our hell-hole prisons for non-violet drug "crimes". Bill the horse's ass then made the bold claim that selling drugs is a violent crime because of all the havoc they inflict on society (a collectivist view to start with from a supposed believer in individualism) , thereby imposing his personal dislike of drugs (though I'm guessing he enjoys America's drug of choice, alcohol) on everyone by banning them. By his logic, of course, bars, liquor stores and alcohol manufacturers are all extremely violent criminals, but statists in general are always lacking when it comes to logical reasoning and consistency (because it's impossible for a statist to be consistent in the first place) . His view is no different from enviromentalist loon statists who advocate things like the incandescent light bulb ban (already I can no longer purchase regular 100 watt bulbs; thanks, asswipes!).

Which brings me to T.C and his post, which I republish below.

Ever notice how effortlessly liberals and conservatives use the word "ban" when it comes to a social problem they deem important?
They just don't grasp that "banning" something creates a criminal under ground and puts people in jail for non-violent crimes.

How about this concept for a change: Mind you business.

Incredible that in this day and age someone would suggest banning something - like cigarettes.

Hence, as I digress, why Ron Paul's message is resonating.

People are tired of the expanded the Bureauctatic-Statist Complex-Banning Things Are For The Brain Dead And Iliberal Minded (republished under Creative Commons)

Sorry little clovers always want to impose their personal vision of how everyone should live on all of society. I have only three words for them: GO TO HELL!


  1. Oh please. You support Ron Paul, who wants to ban abortion. Don't give me this bullshit about light bulbs when you back a theocrat.

    1. How is Ron Paul in any way a "theocrat"? Can you explain that retarded claim? He does not want to impose his religion on anyone, but yes, he believes abortion is wrong (so do some atheists, such as Nat Hentoff, by the way: Nat Hentoff on Abortion). I disagree with him on that, but that one view doesn't make him an advocate of theocracy. In the most recent debate, Santorum actually took him to task because Paul opposes a Federal ban on abortion, preferring to leave the question to individual states (hardly a totalitarian position).

      Let's see, Ron Paul wants to legalize prostitution and drugs, that doesn't sound like any theocrat I've ever heard of. I'm not going to hate him (like you do) because of one position he holds when otherwise he is so overwhelmingly in favor of freedom.

  2. All a reasonable person has to do is look at alcohol prohibition as an experiment, a failed experiment. It shows exactly what happens when things are banned.

  3. Agree that Light Bulb ban makes no sense

    Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas.
    If there is a problem - deal with the problem.

    Overall US energy savings from a switchover are less than 1%, on US Dept of Energy stats and surveys, referenced
    As it happens, GE Philips and Osram manufacturers welcome this ban.
    Why would they welcome being told what they can manufacture? Sure - they admit


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails