What the left gets WRONG about Anarcho-Capitalism: We do NOT believe that altruism is ethically wrong, nor even that it is sub-optimal.

We have no quarrel with VOLUNTARY altruism. We do not believe that we have any right to forbid or regulate it.

What we oppose is altruism that is coerced, that operates for the benefit of those who mandate involuntary altruism by others. Such forced "altruism" [sic] is often performative and/or operates as a bribe that buys political support...at the cost of the autonomy and self-determination of those enslaved in order to satisfy the needs and goals of others.

https://fixupx.com/Handre/status/2105947647227855099

_Diversity Is Why Equality Will Never Exist_

You can either have diversity, or you can have equality. Not both at the same time—so choose one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bebILvJZ_2I

Dunno how/why this never occurred to me before, but had Nixon lost the 1972 Presidential election to George McGovern, wags would eventually have begun referring to the McGovern administration as the "Federal McGovernment."

Guns are FAR from the major cause of death in the United States:

The per-capita rate of death by vehicular accident in the United States is roughly DOUBLE that of the per-capita rate of death by firearms--and that INCLUDES suicides.

Iatracide (death by medical treatment errors) is harder to measure, but even the most minimal stats have it as somewhat higher than the per-capita rate of death by firearms.

Those are only two examples of many. So, if you claim that gun-related deaths justify, or ethically require, broad and deep restrictions on the private possession of firearms, but ignore all the other causes of death, then that proves that you are not sincere at all, just firearm-phobic.

Here are the core logical fallacies of the anti-gun narrative:

Violent crimes don't happen because people have guns. People acquire guns--when and if they are able (they may not be)--because violent crimes are happening where they live and work.

Laws that impose prohibitions just make things worse, as history has proven repeatedly and emphatically. At best, prohibition laws have no effect. That's why it's so easy to buy marijuana or cocaine. _Even in high security prisons!_ And that's why outlawing guns totally won't work, no matter how many centuries go by while we wait for the supply of guns to diminish to zero. That's why the effects of the United Kingdom's comprehensive restrictions on the possession of firearms—imposed following the Dunblane school shooting—had no measurable, positive effect on the all-cause homicide rate.

The common claim is that 'the US is the most violent country in the world,' or that 'the murder rate in the US is higher than just about anywhere else because of the prevalence of guns.' Such claims are false:

Firearm Ownership Density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Yes, the US has the highest firearm ownership density. However, it's homicide rate (4.1 per 100k in 2025, according to the FBI) is far lower than the worldwide average (which may be as low as 7 per 100k, but is higher according to most of the studies.) More importantly, other nations with relatively high firearm ownership densities have far lower murder rates than does the US — and that’s true irrespective of the strictness of their gun laws.

Mexico, for example, forbids bearing firearms outside the owner's home and has a firearm ownership density 7 times lower than that of the US (12.9 per 100k versus 120.5 per 100k,) but it's murder rate (25.638 per 100k) is _6 times higher_ than the US (4.1 per 100k.) The number of firearm-homicides per 100k gun owners in the US is no higher than 20, whereas the number of firearm-homicides per 100k gun owners in Mexico is no less than 110, which is more than 5 times higher than the rate of homicides per gun owner in the US. That alone falsifies the claim that the density of gun ownership is the problem, or that very strict gun laws solve the problem.

_I Put A Spell On You (But it's a BASS singer)_

"You can always count on Geoff Cast-a-spellucci to enchant you!!!"

https://youtu.be/_AILcdMI1fI

Sad, but true.

But I'll add two more typical—but not guaranteed—exceptions: Polymaths and auto-didacts.

_Why Are Some Vaccine Injured and Others Not?_

FTA: McCullough’s core answer is a three-factor model. The first factor is batch variability: he claims the mRNA doses were not uniform, that some people received a very low concentration of messenger RNA, and he points to Pfizer’s lot data — roughly 4,500 lots, with about 75% showing essentially zero serious side effects — as evidence that the product was inconsistent rather than harmless. The second factor is antibody neutralization. If a person’s immune system perfectly neutralizes the spike protein, he says there appear to be no side effects at all; but if the “library” of antibodies is off even slightly, the spike protein can roam through the body and cause damage and syndromes. The third factor is baseline susceptibility. In his cardiology practice, he says, patients with baseline mutations in heart muscle proteins are at increased risk for myocarditis, and those with genetic predispositions to clotting are at increased risk of a vaccine-associated blood clot. McCullough’s answer rests on three variables that, in his telling, determine who gets hurt and who walks away fine:

* Batch variability — mRNA doses were not uniform. Some lots contained very little active mRNA, which he links to a large share of Pfizer’s lots showing no serious side effects. The implication: it wasn’t that the product was harmless, but that some people effectively got a low dose.

* Antibody neutralization — If the immune system fully neutralizes the spike protein, no problem. If the antibody “library” is slightly off, the spike protein is free to circulate and cause damage.

* Baseline susceptibility — Pre-existing mutations in heart muscle proteins raise myocarditis risk; genetic clotting predispositions raise clot risk. In his framing, the vaccine is the trigger, and genetics determine who gets hit.

He repeatedly cites a 98% / 2% split — around 2% of the vaccinated population, per his reading of CDC vSafe data, developing problems.

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/why-are-some-vaccine-injured-and

And with no ID required?

_5 Claude Tricks That Give You an Unfair Advantage (Most People Still Use the Old Way)_

https://medium.com/ai-engineering-simplified/5-claude-tricks-that-give-you-an-unfair-advantage-most-people-still-use-the-old-way-0385a58057c7

_The Actual Reason Why Google “Fell Out” of the AI Race Changes Everything_

The author's thesis:

FTA: Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis (recently changed roles within Google) doesn’t think that automating AI research with coding agents (AI systems that can program better AI systems) is the correct approach to artificial general intelligence (AGI, the kind of AI that’s as good as humans at everything). Google DeepMind’s leadership sees OpenAI and Anthropic’s bet at best as an off-ramp, and at worst as a dead end.

Hassabis is betting on something else: world models. Models that can understand and simulate the real world, not just predict the next token.

And he’s steering Google accordingly. The AI race is actually a race between two theories of intelligence and also between two kinds of company: startups that need AI to become a business, and an incumbent whose existing business can subsidize AI for years. As we will see, Hassabis’s decision puts Google in a life-or-death situation. He could make Google the absolute leader or an irrelevant laggard.

https://albertoromgar.medium.com/the-actual-reason-why-google-fell-out-of-the-ai-race-changes-everything-d935663a09c3