SpoilingSocialJustice

Social justice undermines individual rights, innovation and growth, and our common humanity. Likes and follows are not endorsements.

[SpoilingSocialJustice @SpoilingSJW]

@ClayTravis For the first time ever I turned on a US soccer match today, and what is the first thing I see? Rainbow propaganda. I turned it off. What a wasted opportunity to bring new fans in. When will people ever learn that we do not want politics in our sports?

[SpoilingSocialJustice @SpoilingSJW]

@USMNT If I had wanted a political statement, I would have turned on the news. I refuse to watch sports teams that are preaching to me.

[SpoilingSocialJustice @SpoilingSJW]

Was able to get through by using Safari instead of Chrome

[SpoilingSocialJustice @SpoilingSJW]

@Nelnet your website is not letting me login to make payment

[Regulator Watch @RegWatchCanada]

WSJ reports: “A frustrated President Trump over the weekend upbraided Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary for not moving quickly enough to approve flavored vapes and nicotine products.” @VaporTechAssoc @ECIGattorney @cdoug @ChaunceyGardner @alli_vapes @JMacNYC

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans.

Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable.

Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale.

Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné.

Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut.

À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol.

Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée.

Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit.

Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie.

Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags.

Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle.

Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère.

Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision :

"La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne)
"La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek
"Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt
Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

[KanekoaTheGreat @KanekoaTheGreat]

🔥NEW: Clarence Thomas — full remarks on progressivism, its foundations, history, and impact from his appearance at University of Texas at Austin:

“Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao were all intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration is based.”

"Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people."

"It comes as no surprise that the progressives embraced eugenics... It was only a small step for Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce."

"It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce."

“European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world, with its weakened, decentralized government and strong individual rights. They say our 18th-century Declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government."

"But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bonds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel, Marx, and their followers. Fascism, which after all was national socialism, triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions."

"The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill tens of millions more of their own people. This is what happens when natural rights give way to higher-good notions of history or progress, or, as Thomas Sowell has written, the visions of the anointed."

"None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the Declaration. Tocqueville's Democracy in America is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule, root and branch."

"Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive.”

[Defiant L’s @DefiantLs]

💯

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Good explanation of nihilist philosophy

[Helen Andrews @herandrews]

The ruling ideology is just race communism. Taking stuff from the bad class and giving it to the good class is its central purpose as much as it was for the Soviets. Who gets board seats, jobs, college spots, loans, housing—it’s all about the allocation of resources by race.

[David Parker @david_parker]

Men cannot become women, and women cannot become men. Believing this biological fact is about to be a hate crime in Canada.

[Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ @christopherrufo]

They say woke is dead, but the Dems are running a candidate in Texas who believes that God is nonbinary, Jesus was a radical feminist, and the Virgin Mary contemplated an abortion

[Marc Nixon @MarcNixon24]

If you enjoy creating and posting MEMES in Canada 🇨🇦 I would suggest to go all out.

It will soon be a criminal offense.

Canada 🇨🇦 has FALLEN

Bill C9 will jail you for 2 years for a MEME deemed hateful. The BEST part, our BROKEN justice system gets to decide what hate is

[Mike McMullen 🇨🇦 @truthtrain101]

When the Bible becomes “hate speech,” you know the world has flipped upside down.

The devil is in full control.

[Nathan Zekveld @RevZekveld]

It looks like the Liberal government is forcing Bill C-9 to law even with massive pushback. Fundamentally they are taking authority over the ministry of the Word in the church by doing so. Telling us how to interpret the Bible. This is like the Chinese government. We must obey God and not man.

[Aaron Gunn @AaronGunn]

Horrible news.

The Liberal Government has just successfully “censored their censorship bill” by working with the separatist Bloc Quebecois to end committee debate and ram the bill through Parliament.

The bill seeks to make it easier to prosecute and arrest Canadians for political and religious expression by watering down the definition of “hate speech” and removing important safeguards against abuse.

We’ll continue the fight in Parliament, but there’s no way to sugar-coat the situation.

This is a dark day for free speech in Canada.

[Joe Tay 鄭敬基 @joetay1212]

🇨🇦Canada is not China, Iran, or North Korea. But freedom rarely disappears overnight. Bill by bill. It erodes bill C11. C-18. C-63. Now C-9.
#BillC9 #freedomofspeech #freedomofreligion #charterright #Cdnpoli

[Andrew Lawton @AndrewLawton]

Sean Fraser claims religious freedom isn't jeopardized by Bill C-9, but he refuses to denounce Marc Miller's claim that prosecutors should be able to charge people for quoting certain verses of scripture.

[Tristin Hopper @TristinHopper]

To any future historians reading this, this era will make a lot more sense if you remember that every name is the opposite of what it really is. The antifascists are fascists, the antiracists are racists, the fact-checkers are propagandists, etc. Hopefully this has been fixed by your time.

[Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber]

Within an hour of me uploading this same vid to YouTube, my journalism on NED’s censorship network in Europe was censored for… ‘harassing’ the censors by reporting on what they do🦨💀