Marie Carlisle

Attorney, runner, Houston Texans fan, Catholic, libertarian, fluent in sarcasm, (crazy) dog mom, believe in being good to others 🐾🏈🌱

[Vlad @OrwellsNotebook]

@Polymarket

[Secrets of Privacy | Make Yourself a Harder Target @secretsofprivac]

@Polymarket As was predicted...

[OutspokenSamantha @Outspoken_Sam]

Elon Musk is not stealing from you.

Gavin Newsom is stealing from you.
Karen Bass is stealing from you.
Tim Walz is stealing from you.
Elizabeth Warren is stealing from you.
AOC is stealing from you.

Becoming wealthy does not make you evil.

The people who take from you, promising to fix problems and then enriching themselves while trying to get you to hate those they're taking the money from... are evil.

[Skscartoon @skscartoon]

Reminder:
In 2024 a German court in Hamburg sentenced a 20 year old woman to prison for calling a migrant rapist "disgusting pig", while the rapist served no jail time.
https://t.co/5V90MMlZxg

[ERCOT @ERCOT_ISO]

The ERCOT Board of Directors is meeting this afternoon, June 1, beginning at 2 p.m. CDT and continuing on Tuesday, June 2, from 10 a.m. CDT. See the full regular meeting agenda and watch live: https://t.co/IWJi5j7IDD

[Marie Carlisle @mlc025]

@RaminNasibov SimEarth

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

There is something darkly amusing about the fact that selling victimhood to the most privileged people in history has become such a lucrative and big business.

When I was on tour with @jordanbpeterson he talked about many things, but probably the most common recurring theme was the "Spirit of Cain". It seems our ancient and sacred texts tell these stories for a reason: victimhood is easy, seductive and addictive. And now profitable too.

We are living through a perpetual victimhood escalation battle where people (and groups) now compete not on merit, but on the supposed disadvantages they face. Which makes perfect sense since this is the incentive structure our societies have been encouraged and forced to adopt.

[Creative Deduction @CreativeDeduct]

In 1696, the British government decided to tax sunlight. Under the Window Tax, households were charged according to the number of windows in their homes. To avoid paying, many people simply bricked up or boarded over their windows, choosing to live in darkness rather than hand money to the state for daylight.
The tax was presented as a fair way of taxing wealth, since larger houses tended to have more windows. In practice, it proved crude and damaging. Tax inspectors were given the power to enter homes and count the windows, which was widely resented as an invasion of privacy.
The consequences were severe. Poorer families, in particular, bricked up windows to reduce their liability, leaving homes darker, damper and poorly ventilated. This contributed to higher rates of disease, including tuberculosis and rickets. Architects began designing houses with fewer windows to minimise the tax, resulting in buildings that were less healthy and less pleasant to live in.
Far from being an efficient revenue raiser, the Window Tax distorted behaviour, harmed public health and became increasingly unpopular over time. Yet it remained in place for 155 years until it was finally abolished in 1851. The Window Tax required invasive enforcement and created more resentment, hardship and economic distortion than revenue. It is a classic example of the unintended consequences of taxation.

[Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith]

Communists learned the hard way that the redistribution of wealth only works if there is first wealth to redistribute.

[Rothmus 🏴 @Rothmus]

As a young socialist, Hayek read Ludwig von Mises’ 1920 paper “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.”

Mises showed that socialist central planning isn’t merely inefficient, it’s impossible.

Without private property and genuine market prices, planners lack any rational way to allocate scarce resources or determine real costs and needs.

Even Oskar Lange, a leading socialist in the calculation debate, effectively conceded the point.
While he promoted “market socialism” with trial-and-error pricing by a central board, real-world socialist planners in Eastern Europe quietly relied on world capitalist market prices as a guide.

Without external free-market price signals, pure socialism would be economically blind and coordination would collapse.

Mises went further, arguing that interventionism, the “middle way” of government meddling, is inherently unstable.
Each intervention creates problems that invite more interventions, eventually leading to full socialization.
Price controls cause shortages, subsidies distort production, and the cycle continues until the economy is fully planned.

The lesson is clear.
Rational economics requires genuine market prices emerging from voluntary exchange and private property.
Half-measures don’t stabilize the system. They accelerate the drift into central planning.

The Austrian School understood this decades before the collapse of the Soviet bloc proved it in practice.

[Bailey @RealXBailey]

@breccastoll @mirandadevine Here's the scam:

Mandate improvements on the landlords that cost a lot of money, BUT the landlords cannot raise rent to pay for the repairs & improvements.

When they don't do the mandated improvements, seize the property.

Classic socialist takeover that will result in ruin.

[Giles Udy @GilesUdy]

As a Soviet historian who has spent years writing about the extreme, repressive control Soviet Communism exercised over its unfortunate citizens, I find it really hard to bring a similar accusation against the Labour government and Keir Starmer.

But I’m finding it increasingly difficult to avoid that conclusion.

We have no Gulag or death penalty, admittedly, but what Labour and the old Soviet regime do have in common is the arrogant belief that they alone hold the moral high ground and that this entitles them to the total control over all those who do not share their worldview.

And like the Soviets of old their tools of control are the same…

- legislation and co-opted courts and civil service to apply it

- the policing of dissent, by hate crime orders, arrests (@glinner), the long term seizure of electronic appliances (@CF_Farrow) to intimidate even those against whom no charges are finally brought.

- controlling free speech (12,000 arrests annually for social media posts in 2025). George Orwell’s ‘thought crime’ persecution has become a reality under Labour.

- framing dissent (the Unite the Kingdom participants) as racism and far right fascism (Stalin started that in the days when Labour was his captive party, the 1930s, and ‘fascist’ has remained their favoured mantra ever since)

- attacking and weakening the family (because the family is so often a place where small ‘c’ conservative values are transmitted down the generations), including the promotion of trans ideology to confuse children in their understanding of the roles of men and women, mothers and fathers. In their eyes women can have penises and ‘heteronormativity’ must be ‘smashed’.

- education, wrested as Marx decreed, from the middle class (private schools and VAT), and used as a vehicle for the state propagandising of children and youth at their most vulnerable age.

… and much more.

In short, I can reach no other conclusion. Under Labour, Britain is becoming a repressive state which is, incredibly, echoing the very characteristics of repression that any former resident of the Soviet Union or its satellite states would recognise today (and they do and tell us so)

And with every opportunity Keir Starmer has to rein that in, he instead doubles down. Month by month things get worse.

This is 2026. I can’t believe what I am seeing. Or what I’m saying. But, yes, it is going on. And only a majority government of either Tories or Reform (and I do have reservations about both) of a coalition of two can reverse this.

… or we are sunk

[MAZE @mazemoore]

Trump's team misclassifies a payment to Stormy Daniels: Trump gets convicted of 34 felonies.

Hillary Clinton's team pays for the creation of the Steele dossier (which causes immeasurable damage to the country), and misclassifies the payment: $8,000 fine

[Amity @amitylee13]

TL;DR - Both sides suck.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital.

Cette phrase change tout.

L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ?

Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible.

Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur.

Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé.

Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire.

L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants.

Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution.

Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain.

Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée.

Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien.

La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose.

Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins.

Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires.

La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

[Valerie Anne Smith @ValerieAnne1970]

"Digital currency is the ULTIMATE weapon of total control.

The next time you refuse an mRNA shot? They flip a switch and ERASE YOU.

No money. No food. No home. No future.

Instant starvation. Instant slavery. Instant death for non-compliance."

— Christine Anderson, German MEP

This is their final trap: complete digital tyranny.

Obey the jab or be deleted from existence.

Your life, your children’s lives — one click away from total annihilation.

RESIST NOW or lose everything forever.

[Chamath Palihapitiya @chamath]

The Billionaire Tax is actually an Everyone Tax.

The Billionaire Tax is a new tax proposal written by four professors who don't believe in the American dream. Some of them aren’t even American…go figure.

Despite its name, it applies to every California resident who currently has assets or ever will.

The creators named it the Billionaire Tax so you would get into a froth andwouldn't look closely at what it actually does to you.

On page twenty-six, it explains how the government can convert to an Everyone Tax without voter approval.

They can also adjust the tax to be a yearly tax, not just one time…again, without your approval.

Here's how the tax would work: As a voter, you're being asked to approve a tax that would require you to:

1. list all your assets and the value of each, then submit them to the California Franchise Tax Board.

2. authorize the tax board to appraise your assets and confirm the value of each.

3. pay a penalty of up to forty percent of your tax bill if the board determines your reported value was too low in their opinion.

4. allow the tax board to subpoena your financial records from every one of your financial institutions for auditing.

This Everyone Tax runs 34 pages of shifty language describing how the government plans to take your assets. Read the fine print and decide for yourself.

If this were truly a billionaire tax, it would be 3 pages.

It’s 34 pages so that it can create the mechanisms to steal from all of you.

[Dan Black @Libfyter]

@Handre "Private companies must satisfy customers to survive, while government monopolies need only satisfy politicians."

This should be framed and hung on the wall in every classroom and government office!