I'm Rick Barber, and I approved this Revolutionary War'

June 15, 2010

Article Text

I do my best not to bring the divisiveness of politics onto this blog, but this is just too nutjob-crazy (*) to ignore. And hilarious.

* Of course, nutjob-crazy is probably in reality a misnomer. These things are probably so cynically calculated as to appear nutjob-crazy simply for the purposes of going viral and being posted on a blog that otherwise would never have even heard of Rick Barber. So, I suppose: Rick Barber 1, Jammer 0.

This is almost as hilarious as that instant-classic Demon Sheep spot. Not quite, though, because honestly nothing could ever be that awesome.

Gather. Your. Armies.™ And remember: No amount of excessive, over-the-top hyperbolic bluster is ever too much!

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.

◄ Blog Index

Comment Section

25 comments on this post

    I feel I must say, I'm gald I live in Canada. At most our political Ad's involve personal attacks. Wit, that's not better.

    LOL!! Absolutely, without a doubt, going for the same 'over the top but gets more free name recognition than any normal ad ever could' angle as the demon sheep. And while I wouldn't try to interpret something as complex as an election based on one ad, remember, the candidate that put out that demon sheep ad (Carly Fiorina) won her primary, so any negative backlash from the ad didn't hurt her long term. So yeah, Barber 200000 (hits on Youtube so far), Us 0.

    Of course there's always the possibility he's serious in which case he's batshit bonkers and needs to use his campaign funds on a good shrink.

    November's going to be a bloodbath for the democrats. It didn't take very long for them to fall apart as soon as they stop hiding their agenda and start acting on it.

    Really Jason? You honestly believe that? With the Tea Party simultaneously ripping apart the GOP and exposing themselves as the lunatics they tend to be? The Dems may lose some seats, as most in power do, but it will hardly be a bloodbath.

    Yeah, I think a lot of republicans are going to be surprised at just how little damage the democrats take this year.

    Must hand it to Barber, the spots are as eye-catching as they are brain-stupiding. Like his follow-up featuring Abraham Lincoln...


    ...in which the would-be Congressman bonds with Honest Abe over the evils of slavery. "We shed a lot of blood to stop that in the past, didn't we?" Not in Alabama, you didn't.

    Grumpy, they shed a lot of blood in Alabama too, just not for the winning side.

    "Well, Barber got clobbered. Hopefully that puts this sort of crap to rest."

    A political tactic will only be used as long as (and in places that) it works. Real democracy tends to have that evolutionary dynamic.

    I actually can't believe how many people are dissing on the ad. He's right. I know nothing about him personally. I dunno if the ad is a lie. I don't know what he's done in the past, and if his integrity of his life matches the ad. But purely based on the context of the ad, how is he wrong?

    Re: "Well, Barber got clobbered. Hopefully that puts this sort of crap to rest."

    So if someone loses, that means he is wrong? Majority is right? What if majority says 2+2=5? Are they right? Of course not. What if the majority wants to take away property rights, or the freedom to pursue their own happiness? Are they right? Of course not.

    Just because someone loses, doesn't mean their argument was wrong. If anything, the media and the government (both republican and democrats) has turned most of the population into a bunch of drones. It doesn't surprise me most people don't know the truth and simply don't get it.

    If you're going to make correct policy decisions, they should be based on logic and reason, not the majority (the stupidity of the mob) or a small minority (a dictatorship).

    Re: "Must hand it to Barber, the spots are as eye-catching as they are brain-stupiding."

    If you failed to grasp what he said during this spot, then you are the one that is stupid. When 1/3 to 1/2 of your money goes to taxes, in order to pay for the US debt to the Federal reserve, or to pay for welfare programs, or wars that don't make any sense, or any other kind of program that is meant to be for "the good of the people"... is that not a form of slavery?

    Think about it. Do you have a choice about where your money goes when you pay your taxes? What if you said, "no, I'm not paying"? You'd be investigated by the IRS, and probably go to prison at the hand of their guns and police force, or have your property taken from you. You'd be cleaned up dry, and your life would be ruined.

    So to avoid such a fate, you pay taxes. A lot of taxes. You really don't have a say in the matter about what to do with a massive chunk of your own money. You are working not solely for yourself and the people who are a value to you, but for "the good of the people" or "the good of the nation" by FORCE. You have to bail out banks, fund wars, and fund social problems against your will. This is not at all in your rational self-interest.

    If you don't get this, it is you who really doesn't understand.

    I am Australian living in America, and I think Americans ought to stop complaining about taxes. Your tax rates are significantly smaller than the rest of the developed world. Yeah, you get a lot less for less money, but still... everyone in America seems to complain about taxes. I did a little bit of research, and income taxes in the US are at their lowest levels since the 1950s. What gives with all the complaining?

    Ken - guess what? That's how democracy works. You elect people to make decisions. If you don't like their decisions, elect someone else. But if a majority of your fellow Americans think it's a good idea to collect taxes to support the less fortunate, or for whatever other reason, that's not slavery. It's the price you pay for living in a democracy.

    If you don't like it, you can try to elect people who favor your view, or you can get out. Stomping your feet and complaining that everyone else is stupid for not seeing it your way just makes *you* look dumb.

    To Josh - So, if someone comes to your home, and they want to steal $100 worth of stuff, and you settle for only $20 of theft, does that make it okay? Theft is theft. Even if the thief steals 1 penny from you that he did not earn, it's still theft. It doesn't matter how low or how high the taxes are. Theft is theft. It is immoral.

    To Powers - Too bad 99.9% of the people up for election are puppets, and the only people who actually want real change are blasted by the media machine, or dumb people who think he's stupid. The media machine is totally doing it's job right if they got you all convinced.

    To Powers again - Also, democracy is a flawed system. Look at something like the majority not wanting to allow for gay marriage in a particular state. Yes, majority rules, but they've also voted against the constitution and have violated the rights of a minority group. Just because majority wants something doesn't mean it's right.

    If the majority wanted video surveillance in everyone's homes for their own safety to allow government to see what's going on, this is still not right. It doesn't matter if 99% of the people want. The 1% that don't want it and do not consent have their rights violated.

    All the media has to do is convince 51% of the drones in the country that something is in their best interest, and that's it - 49% get their rights violated and the constitution be damned.

    And let's not forget, most politicians in office don't do anything remotely close to what they said they were going to do when they are elected. Is obama really better than bush? No, he isn't.

    Wait, Ken, you're saying taxes equals theft? That's crazy. Every civilised country has to pay taxes. It's what pays for all the things you take for granted on a daily basis.

    Just because you label it "civilized" does not make it moral. Also, just because most nations do it does not make it right. The idea of taxes is not proven to be right or "good" just because most nations do it. A lot of nations practiced Tyranny in the past, and it wasn't right then either.

    Think about it Josh, if you didn't have to pay your income tax, would you? Almost everyone would not pay it. I would not. Think about why you have to pay them - because they'll put you in jail if you don't, right? That's force. They are threatening force if you don't give them your money. This is basically theft, as anything instigated by the use of force is not consensual. You pay your taxes because of the threat to use force.

    The US had it's civil war over a freaking tea tax. A tea tax! (An over-simplification, but accurate nonetheless). And now we have licenses, a pile of taxes and a massive tax code. Let's not forget, we have inflation, which is yet another hidden tax on top of everything else because it devalues the currency you already earned. The US was founded on the principles of liberty, yet today everyone puts up with all of these taxes and licenses... and they got you to believe it! They did a number on you Josh. I'm saddened by this.

    Also, none of your income tax pays for things like roads and all the "basic services we take for granted." It does not. It pays the national debt. That's it. Read up on it.

    I mean seriously Josh, they won if they got you to believe that someone like me is crazy. The difference between tyranny then and now is that they found a way to pull it off without most people knowing about it.

    Do you think it's "good" to pay taxes? Do you think it's your duty? It isn't. You have the right to your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. You are not obligated or are responsible for anyone else's affairs but your own. Yet, you pay taxes to help people on welfare, fight wars you may not believe in, bail out banks and wall street who deserved to fail, and pay off a national debt that you never created yourself.

    Do you think they know better on how to fix the problems than you? Hahaha. They don't. They have no clue, and worse, sometimes they fully know what they are doing and how evil it is, and they do it anyway. The government now has the power to violate your rights, constitution be damned.

    If you ask me, they are taking your money for things that don't even concern you at all. Do you really value the people in Iraq? Why should you? You probably can't even pronounce their names, let alone know what the money is going toward. How does giving them money to build a new iraq and take out their leader pursue your own happiness? It doesn't. In fact, it violates your right to property, and actually makes you less safe in your own country because of blow-back.

    I'm sure you'd rather give your tax money to your wife who might be sick in the hospital, to your kids for college, a new car, or maybe just to invest it in gold for when the dollar becomes worthless (because it will). Things like these shoukd be your values, not some strangers on the other side of the planet.

    The same principle applies to people on welfare. While it sucks that people are in really hard times, why is it your responsibility? So in the name of preventing homelessness, we should transfer the money from wealthier people to support the poor, which actually makes wealthier people poorer? Yeah, that's a great solution to creating wealth and prosperity! Where is the logic in that?!

    When the money is gone from rent and food, what wealth was created in it's place? None basically. And in the meantime, you took capital away from people who earned it and could use it to produce more wealth.

    Using evil to correct a problem does not bring about the good. It just brings more evil.

    Hell, the reason so many people are on welfare or need food stamps is purely because the government messed things up so bad in the first place! Their "solutions" got us here, and will continue makes things even worse!

    What about the debt? Why should you pay for a debt you never caused? Shouldn't your tax money go to your own debt from going to college, or taking out a business loan? Why does the nation's debt become one of your priorities for? This is absurd. So a bunch of stupid men and women in congress and senate spend more money than they actually have... and you pay for it?!

    None of these things are just, and frankly, you should be opposed to them morally. It is in fact theft. I am not crazy. You are asked to be responsible for things that DO NOT CONCERN YOU at all. Our lives are complicated enough as it is, I don't need to be responsible for everyone on welfare, and financially support a war in Iraq I never wanted to fight, or pay off some debt that pure idiots caused.

    The truth is, you *could* make more than enough money from taking a consensual, voluntary % out of all the business contracts in the country to pay for basic government services, like for them to protect our liberties and to have courts.

    Doing this would absolutely be enough money to run government, and nobody would have to pay taxes at all. This would be 100% consensual. If you don't want your contracts backed by the courts, then you don't have to pay it. Of course, a lot of people would pay the 0.2% (as an example) to insure their contracts are lawfully upheld. If you didn't, then you're not protected and you can't use the legal government services. It's entirely fair and just. Problem solved.

    What we have now is not justice, but it's theft and it's 100% immoral. I really don't think I'm wrong on this. I think they got everyone believing a lie as everything I said makes perfect sense. It doesn't sound crazy at all.

    For your own learning and understanding, read something like Atlus Shrugged from Ayn Rand. She goes into pretty good introductory detail about what is good, what is evil, what is theft, etc. I guarantee your eyes will open up after reading it. Every person who desires freedom should read it.

    Anyway, I'm not so crazy now, eh? There's a good deal of logically thinking behind what these people say.

    Ken, I certainly agree that many of the things our taxes have gone towards are nuts, and I certainly don't support them, but I guess it comes down to what Churchill said, which is that democracy is the worst possible form of government. Except for all the other ones.

    Also I have read Atlas Shrugged, and I think Rand oversimplified absolutely everything. The real world is extremely complicated, and while I appreciate your idea of a small business contract tax paying for everything, I don't think that's practical at all. Running a country with 300 million people in it is tricky. Do I think the current tax system is fair? No, but only because I don't feel people get what they pay for, not because I'm opposed to the *idea* of tax at all.

    I don't think there's a simple solution in a system so big and bloated. But I come from a place where we care about our fellow citizens, and don't mind some of our money going to help them out. Admittedly this is at its best when government is running around spending billions on unfunded mandates and racking up debt.

    It seems Eisenhower was right when he talked about the Military Industrial Complex. Only he didn't forsee the Health Insurance Industrial Complex, the Corn Subsidy Industrial Complex, the Beef Industry Industrial Complex, the Wall St Industrial Complex, etc etc etc.

    The reason Atlus Shrugged reads like an over-simplification is that the book was never, ever intended to be a representation of real life, not in the sense of accurate, detail-by-detail account of what would happen.

    Ayn Rand intended Atlus Shrugged to be art. It is very black and white, because she believed good art communicated concepts in a very straight-forward and clear manner. She thought a lot of cruft and details would take away from the messages she wanted to communicate. Nonetheless, her actual philosophy that the book is based on is very sound and makes perfect sense. The book just takes ideas and sees how they might develop if you take them to their natural conclusions. You have to admit, she actually predicted a few things.

    I agree that running a country with 300+ million people is hard. Solution? Divide and Conquer. Simplify. We know how to do it when we build massive computer systems, space stations, and a number of other things... why not governments?

    The ironic thing is that the US was originally setup this way - by STATES. It has only been in the last 100 or so years that the federal government is looked upon as an entity that is better/more powerful than the states... in the same way that a monarchy is better than the people below him. If the states were kept sovereign as they were meant to be, and the federal government was not allowed to grow beyond it's original limits, we wouldn't have this problem.

    If we kept things small, and decentralized power to the smallest communities possible, the federal government would have a lot less to do, and so it would be simpler to manage. Problem solved.

    As for taxes... the tax is not fair not just because you don't get what you pay for. It's not fair because you are FORCED to pay it. This is a massive, moral problem as it violates your rights to keep your property (your earnings). The very idea of regular citizens paying taxes is actually not constitutional. The definition of earning wages has totally changed from when it the constitution and other documents were written.

    Churchill was wrong in his assessment about democracy being the best form of government possible. The freest system of government would be capitalism. Not the capitalism that people talk about in Africa, and not the capitalism that we have now. We've actually never seen true capitalism take place on this planet, however, 1800-1900 United States was the closest thing to it.

    Of course, the US breaks down with the introduction of the federal reserve, the forced removal of gold as a valid currency, changing various parts of the constitution and other documents (removing the parts about states, adding god into the equation, etc.) and creeping in socialistic ideas little-by-little.

    I do need to make a comment about this sentence: "But I come from a place where we care about our fellow citizens, and don't mind some of our money going to help them out."

    I am all for generosity. But please, let that generosity be VOLUNTARY. When it's forced on all the citizens, how is the moral? Is it really generous when you are forced at the point of a gun? Of course it isn't.

    If you want to be generous, every person should be able to decide when, how much, and what cause it goes to using their own value judgments. Government need not apply.

    I also want to point out that others may not share your beliefs that "we are all in it together" and "need to help our fellow citizens out." Forcing this belief on all citizens is actually not moral.

    Truth be told, this is altruistic/collectivism thinking, and it is diametrically opposed to man's nature of egoism/individualism.

    Well no one would doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, Ken, and I appreciate that. But under the system you suggest, which states would have fought World War II? I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's all that practical in such a connected, interdependent world.

    What I'm sick of hearing (from others, not from you) is that the Federal government is interfering too much and spending too much and blah blah blah rugged individualism from people who live in welfare states. I live in California, one of the biggest donor states in the country; we output a crapload of money, and in terms of Federal dollars given out, most of it goes to red states who do nothing but complain about how much they hate the Federal government. That ain't right.

    As for taxes, look, they suck, but it's Locke's social contract. And taxes exist in every developed society everywhere in the world. If they were voluntary, yes, I agree, very few if any people would pay them. But what kind of world would it be if we had to pay per trip for every road we wanted to drive on? Or if we didn't have some kind of legally-mandated limit on how much arsenic could be in our drinking water, or some kind of regulation requiring food companies to tell us what ingredients are in the food we are putting into our bodies.

    Now, I admit the government is doing a largely shitty job of all of this, but I again don't see any kind of practical alternative.

    Not that I expect us to convince each other. :) But it's been a nice, lively discussion.

    I think the better question is, where are the rest of the TNG reviews?? :)

    While the states would be completely sovereign, you have to remember, each of the states have a vested interest in protecting their rights, so I would imagine you would get volunteers from all of the states.

    More over, just because the states are sovereign, it doesn't mean there isn't a federal government. There would be. The constitution definitely grants the power to protect the rights of all the citizens of the states... through the courts, police, and the military. Protecting freedom (real freedom, not Bush's interpretation of it) is a very noble and virtuous goal. I would imagine many would want to be part of it willingly.

    Because a nation's defense is in everyone's rational self-interest, you will get commitment from all the states. I honestly wouldn't worry about this scenario at all.

    As for your problems in California, I totally agree with you. It has to be said, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties are immoral, and there's drones who can't think for themselves on both sides that keep them in power as they are.

    It's my opinion that your state should NOT give any of it's tax money to a welfare state. If the people in this welfare state cannot provide value to others by producing goods and services that people want, then it is JUST that they starve and die. It's better than them being a parasite on your economy. You should not be forced to save them. In fact, not saving them would probably correct the problem, because they'll realize, "Oh crap, I guess I gotta work!"

    The sad truth of it is, our government is socialistic. It puts a noose around those that bring economic growth, and at the same time, it incentivizes those who "need stuff" and can't or refuse to produce to earn it. Basically, the more you "need", the more you get. It encourages people to stop producing because you can always just get another handout. Cut off the handouts, and you solve the problem.

    As for government responsibilities... you did say it yourself, government does a horrible job. And while it does the worst job imaginable at basically everything, it's constantly violating people's rights more and more every day. It's not stopping. It IS GETTING WORSE. How is this combination desirable? They are better ways to do these things, even if we don't know all the answers. A lot of the reason is because we just never put ourselves in the situation to think about them.

    Many roads, hospitals and other facilities can be built privately. Also remember, just because there are no federal taxes, you may have some form of voluntary pool of money to build the roads at the country level. It doesn't need to be federal or even at the state level at all.

    As for the kind of world we'd live in? A free and just one. I am legally blind. I don't drive. I do walk on some of the roads, and use a bus... but my "share" of the road wear-and-tear is so small compared to the average person that I don't know why I am paying an equal share of the road payments for, or more in some cases.

    Frankly, I would gladly get used to a different way of life if I can just go about my business in any way I see fit, just as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. This would be freaking fantastic.

    It would also be nice to earn according to my ability for a change, because I'm a damn smart person but every socialistic idiot is scared to death of me of replacing them. I can out-produce 5 or 10 people easily in my chosen profession, and give better quality. It is amazing how much of a threat this is when you got apply for a job. Ayn Rand talks about people "hating the good for being the good." It is totally true.

    A lot of people think that under Capitalism, it's going to be a lawless land where it's "every man for himself." This is actually not true, and in fact, it would have a far more effective justice system then our current one by far.

    One thing that we frequently get used to in today's society is that businesses cause us harm and nothing is ever done about it. Why? Frankly, because these businesses pay off the politicians, they pay off the regulatory agencies, they lobby and pressure the government to changes things in their favour, they become part of the administration, they find ways to avoid the fines altogether, and nobody at these companies gets any jail time.

    Under capitalism, if anyone infringed on your rights, destroyed your property, etc., they would be responsible for it legally. They would go to jail. End of story.

    Since government no longer have the ability to trample on people's rights, or get involved in regulatory activities, they really have no stake in it anymore, and it wouldn't be profitable for a business to pay them off either. Even if they did offer money, they wouldn't have the authority to do anything anyway. It's a wasted investment.

    When businesses don't have government protection... they can't have immoral monopolies that are not based on merit, they can't take crazy risks and expect to get tax payer money to bail them out, and they can't expect to get off the hook every time they do something illegal. Sounds fantastic to me!

    Also, I'd like to add, a lot of people (and not saying you Josh at all) say, "Well, if you can't figure out how this 1 little detail works in capitalism, then it won't work and we need to stick with the system that we have."

    First, just because *I* may not have the answer, doesn't mean there isn't an answer. Yet, of course as an advocate, I try to educate myself to the best I can with the time I have, even though most of my debaters know 3% of what I know.

    But the truth, I think it's better to start from a place that is provably moral and just - meaning, we can use logic and reason to justify our actions - and figure out the details on how to make that work. This is much better than starting from an provable immoral government and trying to fix it's problems. For everyone one problem capitalism might have, there are dozens if not hundreds of problems with the current mixed system. I don't mind life changes if it means we are a free and just nation for once.

    Of course, the only real way to make this happen to educate people. To try and take people out of their drone state and get them to stop listening to the politicians and stop listening to the media and start *thinking*. Once enough people get it, we can start to see real change. Until then, things are going to get worse. We have to slow them down to give these ideas time to take form and get a wider adoption.

    The job is difficult because right away, most people have no interest in listening. As you can see, Jammer and tons of the first posters in this thread thought this guy was crazy, and laughed him off. Yet, I think I at least made his case that he deserved to be in the political arena and was not at all crazy. I think I even went further than that and proved that he's making a better case than his opponents.

    I hope I did a good job vindicating him.

    "One thing that we frequently get used to in today’s society is that businesses cause us harm and nothing is ever done about it. Why? Frankly, because these businesses pay off the politicians, they pay off the regulatory agencies, they lobby and pressure the government to changes things in their favour, they become part of the administration, they find ways to avoid the fines altogether, and nobody at these companies gets any jail time"

    Effing right, man.

    "Both parties are immoral, and there’s drones who can’t think for themselves on both sides that keep them in power as they are."

    I think this has a lot to do with the media. They sell a certain story, they tend towards laziness and sensationalism. For example, they'll cover an election, but they won't stop and point out the hypocrisies of the candidates, or the flaws in the electoral system in general. The real problem is that almost all of the newspapers, radio and television news is owned by like, 4 companies. They push what you'd call a "corporatist" agenda, (or at least a "status quo" agenda - skillfully obfuscating the public from what's really wrong with the system in their coverage of events). If people had more choices in media, the quality would improve. This brings me to anti-monopoly laws for media. Are you for them? Or do they go against your moral philosophy? Are regulations on business immoral?

    Submit a comment

    ◄ Blog Index