The Tan Teng Niah House, Little India, Singapore
Hi, I'm Bonnie.
My site is bonniekristian.com, which Google determined was a good result for searches of "hipster libertarian." Thus this tumblr.
If you have a question, please check over my FAQ page first. That's also where you'll submit your query.
My other tumblr is [ˈkɾeːdoː].
“In other words, many SOPA opponents were confused and even shocked when they learned that the very power they feared the most in that bill — the power of the U.S. Government to seize and shut down websites based solely on accusations, with no trial — is a power the U.S. Government already possesses and, obviously, is willing and able to exercise even against the world’s largest sites (they have this power thanks to the the 2008 PRO-IP Act pushed by the same industry servants in Congress behind SOPA as well as by forfeiture laws used to seize the property of accused-but-not-convicted drug dealers). This all reminded me quite a bit of the shock and outrage that arose last month over the fact that Barack Obama signed into law a bill (the NDAA) vesting him with the power to militarily detain people without charges, even though, as I pointed out the very first time I wrote about that bill, indefinite detention is already a power the U.S. Government under both Bush and Obama has seized and routinely and aggressively exercises.”
—
Glenn Greenwald (via kateoplis)
“The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” — Henry Kissinger
And then eventually, they pass laws to legalize it. Congress has to be kept busy somehow, right?
(via azspot)
![Before June of 1967, sixteen states still prohibited interracial marriage, including Virginia, the home of Richard Perry Loving, a white man, and his wife, Mildred Loving, a woman of African-American and Native-American descent.
Nine years prior, in June 1958, the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. — where interracial marriage was legal — to get married. When they returned home, however, they were arrested and sentenced to one year in jail for violating the state’s Racial Integrity Act.
[…]
“They just were in love with one another and wanted the right to live together as husband and wife in Virginia, without any interference from officialdom. When I told Richard that this case was, in all likelihood, going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, he became wide-eyed and his jaw dropped,” [their lawyer] Cohen said.
In June 1967, the court unanimously declared Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 unconstitutional and ended all race-based marriage bans in the U.S.
This story of Virginia’s first legal interracial marriage is a perfect example of why the government has no right to be involved in the business of marriage — either to disapprove or approve of any marriage of any kind (excluding, obviously, coerced marriages and other non-voluntary arrangements). John Stossel explains, quoting a guest from his show:
“It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be, gay or not. It should get out of the business of defining marriage at all and let people engage in … a private relationship.”
OK by me. Who needs the government’s sanction anyway?
Indeed. Is the essence of your (maybe future) marriage really in the fact that the government let you get hitched, or in your commitment to your spouse and the support of your family, friends, and religious community? I’d suggest it’s very definitely the latter. As the Lovings’ lawyer put it, “They just were in love with one another and wanted the right to live together as husband and wife in Virginia, without any interference from officialdom.”](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly9birUx4q1qcfvc7o1_400.jpg)
Before June of 1967, sixteen states still prohibited interracial marriage, including Virginia, the home of Richard Perry Loving, a white man, and his wife, Mildred Loving, a woman of African-American and Native-American descent.Nine years prior, in June 1958, the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. — where interracial marriage was legal — to get married. When they returned home, however, they were arrested and sentenced to one year in jail for violating the state’s Racial Integrity Act.
[…]
“They just were in love with one another and wanted the right to live together as husband and wife in Virginia, without any interference from officialdom. When I told Richard that this case was, in all likelihood, going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, he became wide-eyed and his jaw dropped,” [their lawyer] Cohen said.
In June 1967, the court unanimously declared Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 unconstitutional and ended all race-based marriage bans in the U.S.
This story of Virginia’s first legal interracial marriage is a perfect example of why the government has no right to be involved in the business of marriage — either to disapprove or approve of any marriage of any kind (excluding, obviously, coerced marriages and other non-voluntary arrangements). John Stossel explains, quoting a guest from his show:
“It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be, gay or not. It should get out of the business of defining marriage at all and let people engage in … a private relationship.”
OK by me. Who needs the government’s sanction anyway?
Indeed. Is the essence of your (maybe future) marriage really in the fact that the government let you get hitched, or in your commitment to your spouse and the support of your family, friends, and religious community? I’d suggest it’s very definitely the latter. As the Lovings’ lawyer put it, “They just were in love with one another and wanted the right to live together as husband and wife in Virginia, without any interference from officialdom.”
“What cost $1 in 1900 would cost $25.85 in 2010. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1900, they would cost you $1 and $0.04 respectively.”
Q. Under the Austrian School of Economics, and indeed by the predictions of its proponents, the huge, expansionary policies of the Federal Reserve should be causing run-away Inflation. Indeed, the cry for years has been to warn of dire hyperinflation should any of the no in place expansionary policies by tried. Yet this flies in the face of what we have seen, namely price stability (save for rising Oil Imports) resulting in an entirely normal inflation rate of 3%. How do you square this with your avowed Austrian view? — Whimsical Eloquence, from tumblr.
A. Most of my answer can be summed up in this graphic:
As you can see, the value of the dollar has steadily declined over the course of the last hundred years. It was also on the decline before then. If you’d like to play with the numbers on a year-by-year basis, try this inflation calculator. As the results of my calculation put it, “What cost $1 in 1900 would cost $25.85 in 2010. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1900, they would cost you $1 and $0.04 respectively.”
That’s a lot of inflation, especially considering the lowering of prices which has been produced by technological advances, economies of scale, etc. Moreover, as you mentioned, I subscribe to Austrian economics, which sees inflation not primarily as a rise in prices — the rising prices are merely a symptom of the underlying problem of the (fiat) growth of the money supply, which has grown precipitously. Learn more here.
Military Power in Perspective
Does cutting, say, 10% of the Pentagon budget still sound so scary? 20%? 30%? Because even with such an “extreme” cut as 30%, we’d still be spending more than the next ten countries combined.
Official List of "Too Big To Fail" Banks
Do you do business with any of these vampires? If you do, you are a part of the problem.
Wait, what?
mattgaw replied to your post: Since you’re someone who is both pro-life and pro-peace, I was wondering what you thought of the idea of the “consistent life ethic” which is a political philosophy that opposes all forms of legalized homicide such as abortion, war, capital punishment, euthanasia, ect?
LOL I like how nrneal asked how you justify abortion when your against all other violence and then you respond with why Christians are clouded by their evangelicalism. I would like to expect more out of you.
Uhh…that’s not what he asked?
He asked whether, as someone who doesn’t justify abortion, what I thought about a consistent pro-life ethic, which also encompasses being against war, capital punishment, and the death penalty.
Also, if you read my response (not to mention his question) a little more thoroughly, you’ll notice that I mentioned in an asterisk at the end that my arguments could be equally applied in a secular context. Also, also, your theme makes your ask page nonfunctional. I would like to expect more out of you.
