An outstanding new video from film maker Ben Howe and FreedomWorks:

During his CPAC Speech, Ron Paul stated a basic Libertarian idea: "Government should never be able to do anything you can't do."(ie: If I can't steal a car, or punch you in the face... the Government shouldn't either.) Well that statement boggled the child-like minds of Liberal journalists. They just can't fathom the concept. To them, the all-powerful Government is magic. It might be wrong for a group of individuals to do a given thing, but if they form a Government and touch some magic rings together, with their powers combined, human morality no longer applies.

Let's break it down for the Liberals and prove that Libertarian principle:
For a moment, imagine there were no Government (Don't worry we're not advocating anarchy. This is just a thought experiment, try to keep up.) If there were no Government and you wanted to steal someone's car, it would still be unethical by any standard of basic human morality. Of course you could simply take it by force, but the act itself would still be unethical, immoral, and wrong.

What could you possibly do to make that unethical act an ethical one?

Maybe Majority Rule is the answer. Say you asked everyone in the local area if they thought it was okay for you to steal some guy's car, and everyone (but him) agreed you should. Would that make it ethical? Can you simply vote the unethical ethical? If so, there's no such thing as wrong… Just unpopular. (Murder and rape would only be "bad" because of other people's opinions of them.)

Ok, how about this... What if you and a bunch of people got all dressed up, built a big marble building in the middle of town, got some nice ass paper, and wrote down: "It's okay for us to take that car against his will." That would have to make it ethical... right? People voted for you, and you've got a huge shiny building. Clearly, wrong can be turned to right, bad to good, and immoral to moral only with the proper combination of popularity, paperwork, and architecture.

Remember, the Government's your employee... it's your agent (not agent like 007, agent like: "One you authorize to act on your behalf.") By definition you can only delegate to an agent authority you already have. You can empower someone else to: Go to your house, get the case of beer in your fridge, and bring it back here. But not to: Go to some stranger's house, get the beer out of the stranger's fridge, and bring it back here. I can't ethically steal your car, therefore I can't delegate to the Government the authority to ethically steal your car. Hence the principal: "Government should never be able to do anything you can't do."
--Q.E.D. Motherfucker.

That's what it all comes down to. At the bottom of every political argument is a disagreement on fundamental ethical principals. That's where the split takes place, and that's why Liberals are such fucking pieces of shit. When you're arguing with those douchebags, keep that in mind. Make them admit their core premises, and they're fucking exposed for what they are: People who, one way or another, think it's ethical for you to steal that guy's car (or that the Government's magic.) 

The question is not “Should there be a border fence?” It's “Should the Government spectacularly fuck up its attempt at a border fence?” because fucking things up is what the Government does. It has never not fucked up. (This isn't about Immigration, it's deeper that that.)

Now, take 5 seconds and answer this question: What's the most important characteristic of a border fence? If you said "hard to climb over;" congratulations! You're officially overqualified for government work. So... knowing what you know about the Government, guess what those incompetent cock suckers have done with your money... Goddamnit:

(Note: The douchebags that made this video seem to be Liberal knob gobblers. AbsoluteDespotism.com doesn't support their conclusions, and would prefer they were topless.)

The words you're looking for are: “Well fuck it then. You know what? ...If those pieces of shit can't even build a fucking fence… then fuck it. Just fuck it." Yes, there's a name for that: Consequential Libertarianism. It's the realization that even if you're okay (in theory) with the government doing X, it can't do X. It’ll spend 10 times more of your tax money than it should, give all that money to contributors, and in the end use X to somehow fuck you over.

Now stop thinking about topless girls climbing the border fence and write this down: When Liberals start saying "I think the government should do X." You can come over the top with "You mean: You think the Government should spectacularly fuck up an attempt at X..." Then don't forget to mix in some ridiculing and name calling, which will lead to their inevitable weeping and yet another successfully ruined Thanksgiving dinner.

Why the fuck is it illegal to buy eye glasses without a prescription... are teenagers abusing spectacles? Can you get high off that shit? Nope, otherwise people would be selling bifocals on the goddamn street corner. It's a scam to keep shitty optometrists in business. Remember, every law requires the use of force by the Government. So if you support this law, you support the Government using force against those who break it.

Think that could never happen? Meet Da Young Kim. She owned a company that sold contact lenses. Not corrective lenses; fucking Halloween themed decorative contact lenses. However, the Government's declared it a crime to buy decorative (non corrective) contact lenses without a prescription. So when the Federal Trade Commission suspected Da Young Kim might not be checking every customer's prescription, they jumped into action; spending your tax dollars on an undercover sting operation.

Sure enough, they caught her selling decorative contact lenses to happy customers who didn't waste their money on a pointless prescription. Even though there were no complaints from any customers, the FTC arrested her, and fined her $50,000. But... they acknowledged she didn't have $50,000, so they auctioned off her car and kept the money as a "civil penalty."

Now... after hearing that story, people will have one of two distinct reactions: Some will say "What the fuck? That's bullshit! Fucking Government... Goddammit!" (Those are what you call "good people.") Other's will have this reaction: "Well the Law's the Law. She knew she was breaking the law and she deserves whatever she gets."

The following is addressed to that second group of people:
You needle-dicked pieces of shit are the main obstacle to the advancement of human liberty. Fuck you. You're the Government's bitch and your submissive attitude has enabled tyrants since Man came down from the goddamn trees. "All that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." That's you.

Back in the day people like you turned in runaway slaves because, hey, "The Law's the Law." Now you're saying, "That's ridiculous. It's not the same at all." Oh, so you know some laws are wrong... it's just that your employees (the Government) didn't quite fuck this woman over enough to reach your moral threshold for outrage. That makes you a "Douchebag."

You may not be like the Liberals who enthusiastically suck the Government's cock, but you definitely lay there and take it like a cheap whore. You're the Government's cum dumpster and until you get some self-esteem and grow the fuck up, you'll keep getting used.

(Sorry the rest of you had to see that, but it had to be done.)

Fucking communist bastards. Steeling our "precious bodily fluids" through fluoridation was one thing, but I never thought they'd stoop to this: From the 1963 Goals of the United States Communist Party (this is real):

22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

That's right! It's so obvious now, of course this was a communist plot:










Oh what fools we've been! We all knew these fucking sculptures were bullshit, but did we have the balls to stand up and tell these "artists" to go fuck themselves? No! Well now it's your duty (as an American) to explain to everyone you meet that "Those weird statues are all part of a Communist conspiracy to destroy America! They're everywhere!"

Also by the looks of this "1963 Goals" list, the Communists might be kicking our asses (again, this is real):

Let's clear this up right off the bat: Buzzed driving is NOT drunk driving. Just like "hungry driving" isn't "starving driving" and "getting your tip licked while driving" doesn't count as "road head" (get back down there and finish the job). Words mean things, and when Government do-gooders make those obviously idiotic statements, people just tune them out.

Every adult knows that one drink doesn't make you "drunk", one cigarette won't give you lung cancer and trying a drug once won't kill you. So how about the Government stops intentionally misleading people and using fear to change their behavior. How about it stops treating Americans like children, and stays the fuck out of our lives (or if that's too much to ask, at least give us useful information, like how dangerous it is to drive after any given number of drinks, instead of this "because I said so" bullshit). And for fuck's sake, get rid of the "nanny state" laws that actually cause more people to drive drunk.

Everybody knows the feeling: You're sitting around with your friends having some beers, teetering on that edge between "solid buzz" and "oh, I'm getting drunk". At that exact moment you realize you're going to need to make a beer run. Fuck. Can you drive? Yes. Should you drive?... Hmm maybe, probably not the most responsible thing you've ever done (But there's no fucking way you're going to stop drinking, it's still early).

Now obviously a free market economy would easily solve this problem. When you're drunk and feel like getting a pizza, you don't have to make a "pizza run"... you have that shit delivered. Any pizza place would be happy to deliver beer and pizza right to your doorstep for the most modest of fees... but they fucking can't because that shit's illegal almost everywhere. Why? Because the do-gooders have never heard of "unintended consequences". They want to make alcohol "harder to get" but never stopped to think about what "harder to get" means: Intoxicated people, with impaired judgment, being required to get in a car and drive to the booze instead of the booze driving to them (and if right now you're saying "Well, drunk people should just act responsibly!" Congratulations, that kind of thinking will easily land you a Government job where you too can inadvertently get people killed.)

There are shit loads of simple-minded laws that have the exact same effect. A liquor store will only stay in business if people have a demand for a liquor store at that location. You can pass a law that forces the liquor stores out of that town, but the reality that people in that town have the demand for a liquor store doesn't magically disappear. All you've done is require that they get in their cars and drive to the next town (aka fill your streets with drunk people who wouldn't be driving if it wasn't for your meddling law... thanks asshole.)

14 States have "Blue Laws" banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays... let's take 2 seconds and think that one through: Anyone who ends up drinking a little more of their booze supply than expected on Saturday night (ie. everyone), is faced with a choice: either "Disappoint their friends by canceling Sunday's festivities (such as tailgating, fishing, football parties, bonfires, or just good old fashioned alcoholism)" or "Sacking up and driving to the liquor store at 1 am." That's the choice these laws present to drunk people in the middle of the fucking night. The Government has somehow figured out a way to make people who don't even want to drink anymore that night, drive to the liquor store. Un-fucking-believable. Being a good person requires more than knee-jerk emotional responses to perceived problems... It requires you grow the fuck up and think things through.