ExtremeCapitalists.com

We hope to see you there.

Seriously, SERIOUSLY. commenting here is futile and annoying. STOP IT. STOP IT OR ILL CALL MY MOMMY.

There is one system that truly does treat all people equally: capitalism. This is in the sense of equal rights to not be forced and coerced. A simple order of negative rights. Capitalists like myself however do not believe that equality is a guiding principle in any incumbent government at this time.

Like there are positive and negative rights, there is now what can perfectly be described as positive and negative racism. Racial quotas on mines in Western Australia are imposed, forcing them to hire aboriginals. This means these aboriginals are hired purely on the basis of race, and this is an example of positive racism.I know people who have worked in these situations, and, as instead of the aboriginal workers being chosen on the merit of their abilities they are chosen at random because of race. Most of these people that I know are extremely racist and hateful in the negative sense. This order imposed by big Government does nothing but breed racial envy.

Many third world countries have bizarre sexual practices, and customs that violate the natural rights of individuals living in them. In Saudi Arabia people are stoned to death for crimes as simple as showing too much skin. Yet, the leftists view any condemnation of Islam as bigoted. While at the same time condemning the civilized world for anything ‘cruel and unusual’ done to real offenders to gather intelligence that could save lives.

The fact that people view any moral opposition to a different culture as a problem is an instance of positive racism. They specifically think that Saudi Arabia or China have the right to violate natural rights because they are Saudis or Chinese. Moral relativists, the United Nations for example, have no problem with a distorted and racially subjective morality – where there are no objective laws – only the whims of the particular elite of a geography and culture.

Hate crime laws are just one more instance of positive racism. Although there are no ill intentions behind them, this coming legislation is a perversion of justice. Courts should be considered sacred grounds of objectivity, where race and culture are irrelevant.

Under a true system of negative rights, positive racism would no longer exist.

What is the answer to this love story?

I have heard more comments and discussion about Micheal Moore among conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists than anywhere else. Together these people discussing him make him look controversial and damned by capitalists, as if there is something worthwhile he has to add. The one thing that will lead more idiots than otherwise to view his documentary is the fact that he is being discussed as if his irrational lies served any potential goal at all.

The fact is, I think conservatives love Micheal Moore than anyone else, and conservatives alone. He gives them someone to point at, someone with no real power except by grace of a mob. Someone who didn’t sway anyone to his side who wasn’t already sold on socialist crap in the first place. There is one thing I’ve noticed that conservatives love more than blowing up abortion clinics, and that is blowing up over some dumb socialist in the media.

We live in a world with China as a rising power, North Korea testing missiles, Iran refining fissionable materials and more, Venezuela nationalizing everything, the Taliban, fundamentalists rising in Pakistan, and more… What are the conservatives riled up about? Micheal Fucking Moore.

Moore trying his hardest to be as hip as Kurt Cobain.

When you are as stupid and pointless as Micheal Moore, the old cliche becomes a truth: all publicity is good publicity. Just look at him stand strong against the wave of aging bald douchebag conservatives. Hayek predicted a strongman at the end of the road to serfdom. The Conservatives are just as stupid as Micheal Moore in thinking they’ve found him.

For all those who still stand on the fence, I would like you to know that modern conservatives also don’t know anything about capitalism. All conservatism really means as a word is to support very old values. Conservatives don’t care about any single set of values. As long as it achieves their virtually theocratic society through any means of force.

Capitalism is the system that supports rational self-interest, for all. Anyone should be allowed to achieve their goals for their happiness. Regardless of faith, race, beliefs, or what the mobs of braindead idiots that like Micheal Moore want of you. As long as you don’t violate the life and liberty of others.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN: Because at its core, conservatism is about being pragmatic. John Howard was pragmatic. He was the one who stood up, you know, in Sydney on 3 June on a Sunday and introduced an ETS so that the Liberal Party would have a determined and measured approach on an ETS. It would have a world class ETS.

At its core, conservatism is about being pragmatic? What do we think those in the Labor party would say? I think they would say, “at its core, social democracy is about being pragmatic”. So now we have two major parties, zero principles, and a “pragmatic” (read: ad hoc) response to everything.

Most of us aren’t surprised at this. Of course, the only thing major parties are interested in is the next election. This has left grassroots members of the Liberal party (who are actually principled) disillusioned, particularly those unfortunate enough to be in New South Wales.

None of this is to suggest that pragmatism isn’t useful. Unexpected problems arise which sometimes need a pragmatic response, but to suggest that pragmatism lies at the core of conservatism spits on those conservatives who actually believe something.

Join the LDP. We have principles and we aren’t afraid to use them.

THE doyen of Labor economics advisers, Ross Garnaut, has warned that Kevin Rudd’s attacks on neo-liberalism risk an expansion of government that could damage the economy and even erode Australia’s democratic values.

…

Professor Garnaut warns that the ideological legacy from the crisis and its rebalancing of markets and regulation could be damaging. For instance, he argues that the public debate has overlooked the substantive lesson from the fake email episode involving the Treasury official in charge of the government’s OzCar finance scheme, Godwin Grech.

This was the danger of using “huge amounts” of public money to bail out private companies at the direction of bureaucrats.

He points to problems with other extensions of the “Australian bailout”, from the guarantee for wholesale bank borrowing to foreign bank subsidiaries, state governments, mortgage securities, commercial property and the bigger first-home buyers subsidy.

Krudd and his ilk are normally willing to brush off criticism like this, but I don’t think they will be able to do so when the criticism’s coming from someone that they themselves talked up so much.

I better get some popcorn.

Consider the scale of “post libertarian revolution” justice you choose you support, because it is going to be the deciding factor in your revolution. It will decide whether the new society is to have big government (holding mass proceedings, locking up hundreds of thousands of people). What is also to dictate the fate of any new order that might follow, is the culture behind it.

Judging from what I can see among most conservatives, some libertarians, and few Objectivists the cultural landscape points in a clear direction, but an unfortunate direction. Every time I see this claim, that people should be punished for wrongdoings under an enormous Statist regime, their claims what of what would constitute what would classify as the crime (or crimes) are so vague it belittles me that these people would see themselves on the same side of the fence as I.

The vagueness makes me think of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Revolutionary France. Every nation that was born to the gulag, the concentration camp, the simple guillotine became and has remained a legacy of brutality, collectivism, and torture. Even if there were the best intentions, when the accused stand in their millions it makes no difference. The trials would denigrate, the prisons would be abhorrently inhumane, and worse, the people would have to pay for it all.

If you thought it was amazing how 9/11 could turn so many hearts, and the Gitmo and the patriot act could turn so many the other way – you would be amazed at what proceedings of this magnitude would do to a society. The last thing we need is a new culture founded on paranoia and mistrust. To think a massive collective could hold such a proceeding objectively is foolish.

It might seem unfortunate, the road might seem horrible, but the best thing to do will be to let Atlas Shrug. Internet filters will slow traffic, lead to blackouts, and censor what is right. People will be frustrated, and demand what is right. Rent controls destroy neighborhoods. People will demand their rights restored. It all seems far fetched.

One thing I have learned over the past few years is that most people, regardless of reading her fiction, completely misunderstand Ayn Rand. They simply believe it is as simple as the bridges falling with nobody to fix them. It requires more. Ayn Rand calls for a cultural revolution. A rejection of the mysticism, and statist trends for the sake of the individual. A Second Enlightenment is required.

Angry tirades by lonely school-kids that everyone is stupid and must starve to be enlightened are not just a mockery of Objectivism, but a benchmark toward how much more cultural development is required before progress will be made. Because it is clear, there are people of all manner of beliefs: libertarians, right wingers, left wingers, that are completely fucking insane.

These lunatics and their schoolboy fantasies are not helping. People read Atlas Shrugged and misunderstand Ayn Rand’s brilliant novel. People starving under the reign of statism is not what helps, statism failing and the ideal of individual becoming apparent through Galt’s speech is what actually helped.

When you approach the practicalities of politics and voting in the modern world my best advise is that you do absolutely nothing. Let the morons win. Let Obama “fix” the economy. Are you scared he will actually succeed? Fuck voting.

We don’t have John Galt’s magic radio jammer (sorry, Rand wasn’t an engineer, also sorry for doubting the prophecy) – what we do have is a decentralized Internet that through proxies and VPNs can physically never actually be filtered. When Obama, and future world leaders fail miserably, when China peer-reviewing the US economy fails, when all this bullshit produces the final result the “monkeys” as the moron who commented to inspire this so eloquently put it see what all their voting, councils, and leaders summits produced… then libertarianism will get a chance.

Obama is a socialist? Fucking awesome. Let him do his worst! I’ll do as little as I can help him or you. I will exist only to maintain my own existence. Besides, I still have thousands of great novels to read in the mean time.

I think a lot of the hate filled masses have been brainwashed by the following bullshit.

(Note: if you are on this list and comment it will be deleted)

• Alex Jones documentaries
• Zeitgeist
• Any New World Order documentaries

Thanks, also 9/11 was an outside job, swine flu EVOLVED, women should have abortions if they want, Ron Paul is a religious fundie and even if he had office nobody would listen, I don’t care about your God – while were on that… where is he NOW?, Anarchy is simply gang warfare and miniaturized mob rule and collectivism, anarcho-capitalism is the same with currency,  socialism fucking sucks, you’re right communism has never been realized because its an impossible fucking pipe dream, geolibertarianism has nothing to disarm the state from enormous land-rent revenue, FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING IS NOT CENTRAL BANKING, and fractional reserves rock.

I think these ideas are poorly conceived.

Such a trial would in itself destroy the essence of the libertarianism that established it. It would require a massive expansion of policing. It would require non-objective and vague laws that would lead to an oppressive government – much like the fate of France in revolutionary times when similar justice was put in the hands of mobs and the guillotine.

Anyone who understands central banking knows there are a lot of people getting unearned wealth. How many of these people know how much of their home loan came from freshly printed bills? I don’t think many people do. Punishing them would similar to totalitarianism: unsuspecting individuals suddenly trapped by new laws, guilty of crimes they had no intent nor knowledge of commiting.

Easy credit gets in everybodies hands, from welfare recipients to millionaires.

A true trial of those who gained from these evils would encompass most of the nation. It would lead to corruption in itself, with those in power trying to save those they love.

When a libertarian society finally exists those who could not produce honestly, those who extorted the system to its full extent will find the new way of living most painful. What we all need to remember is – is that the central banking system was the only way those people could survive. Without it, they would suffer by the simple reality of the natural order without coercion.

Some might consider this insane in times of rising unemployment. Yet it could reverse the course of our economy. When people are free to immigrate, they won’t just get jobs, they’ll start businesses, they will bring their wealth here and invest it. They will build houses, they will buy our goods.

While I talk about better self-suffiency, don’t be mistaken. I don’t believe its some moral ideal, I simply believe it could be better. It seems insane, that we export tonnes of commodities to China, it gets turned into things we buy, and comes right back. The ineffiencies in that are obvious.

Talking about China, we need manpower, and they need to do everything they can to deal with overpopulation. Open borders would improve dipolomacy while bettering our own economy.

Another option, which I believe is still LDP policy, is immigration agreements with other countries. This has the same benefits, and some advantages. Just about anything would be better than the current policies which are beaurocratic and foolish. Children get locked up on Christmas Island, for example. The cost of it all is enormous. What exactly is it protecting us from?

Removing the red tape that blocks enteprising indivduals from joining our nation will do more for the economy than the stimulus and irresponsible central banking policy ever could.

In a free society the government’s role is crucial but delimited: the government possesses only those powers delegated to it and necessary for the protection of each citizen’s individual rights against force and fraud. So long as men are voluntarily dealing with one another when they can reach agreement and going their separate ways when they cannot (i.e., exercising their individual rights), the state has no role to play in the affairs of men.

I hope this site becomes a success in an age where many are searching for political values, and answers, in the modern cultural vacuum devoid of truth and objectivity.

Even with an 18+ rating for games, there will still be an office full of pen pushers that get to rate the games, as if they have some special wisdom (which they clearly do not) that Australian consumers and parents do not possess. With the 18+ rating, a sixteen year old could work at a slaughterhouse but still not be able to buy this game. With the ACMA, an office of truly elitist arseholes, we have a Government hand blocking free speech and free expression.

I have a better proposal than an 18+ rating for games. We get rid of the entire ACMA, all of it. Without it, trusted reviewers would ‘rate’ the games, movies, and television. There would be no less protection for children and teenagers, because it is a parents responsibility to check the ratings anyway, or in my proposal, the reviews.

Even with the rating for 18+, and even if it was against the law to do so, many parents would buy this game for their kids. Without ratings and the bans of games, the parents concerned would be able to seek reviews or personally be responsible by checking the content themselves.

The ACMA doesn’t just ban and censor games, films and TV. They are also responsible for handing out monopolies over radio spectrum. Thus, our broadcasters, news, an soon Internet, is in the pocket of Government. We should get rid of this function as well. It isn’t the 1950′s, we don’t need any kind of radio regulation.

I have a bluetooth headset that hops between 70 channels 6000 times per minute. This prevents other equipment from jamming it. In fact, with the current level of technology, equipment could hop channels regulation free on a much wider bandwidth. Not only would this enable the freedom for anyone to become broadcasters, it would make our country stronger against terrorists trying to disrupt communications.

In the old world an organization like the ACMA was essential in organzing a productive use of the radio spectrum. In the modern world the ACMA promotes monopoly, holds technology backward, and distorts freedom of speech.