There are a number of ads but the two I want to highlight are ads that I think cross the line between ‘affectionately taking the piss’ and dangerous prejudice.

The first one is an attack on people with red hair.

The second, an attack on ‘emos’.

The essential problem is they aren’t actually funny. It’s as if the creators thought “Let’s bash some gingers, shooting fish in a barrel”. The lack of wit only highlights just how offensive these ads are. Gingerism or ‘emoism’ is so self evidently abhorrent that any additional effort is simply unnecessary.

I’ve had the feeling for a while that the whole ‘lol gingers lol’ thing was getting out of hand. Where once it was simply an affectionate ‘hey carrot top’ or nickname of ‘blue’, wholesale harassment and bigotry is now becoming acceptable.

The only difference between those ads and an ad with the byline ‘every time you use your mobile phone while driving, a dirty coon uses his dole check to buy booze’ is that the gingers and the emos are acceptable targets of prejudice, while aborigines are no longer acceptable.

These ads cross the line and this prejudice has been paid for with taxpayer dollars. The ads should be immediately pulled, and Victorian Roads Minister Tim Pallas should resign.

Dear Senator Humphries,

I am emailing you about the Coalition’s Paid Maternity Leave scheme announced today. My fiancee and I plan to have children sometime in the next 5-6 years and as such one could assume we are the demographic of voters that this scheme is designed to appeal to. Despite that however I wish to inform you of my strong opposition to this scheme.

It is true that I have a fundamental philosophical opposition to any form of compulsory maternity leave scheme (and the obligatory paragraph on that is forthcoming), however I believe that this scheme is practically flawed in that the funding aspect does not achieve its ostensible goals.

My understanding is the purpose of the levy on the ‘biggest businesses in Australia’ is so that the larger businesses (read: fat cat capitalist pig dogs) that can ‘afford it’ are the ones who bear the burden, leaving the rest of Australia unfettered.

The first problem with that line of thinking is that it relies on these businesses not simply incorporating the increased cost into their pricing. Economic theory and literature on this topic (looking at increases of the corporate tax, which would have the same economic effect) shows us that in response to this scheme, these businesses will raise prices. As such, it is not the fat cat that will pay for this scheme but the every day Australian individual that purchases the products and services of these businesses, who must now pay more.

In addition, we no longer live in a corporate environment where these large businesses are owned by the one stereotypical tycoon (the Rockefeller’s, Ford’s, and Monty Burns’ of the world). These big businesses are in fact owned by shareholders, many of whom are again the every day non wealthy Australian individual. People like my mother and step father. My friends. My colleagues. Myself. As part owners of these businesses it is us that will pay for this scheme through reduced profits, leading to reduced dividends.

Now to finish off with my obligatory libertarian rhetoric; my fiancee and I are hard working and proud people. We desire to have children and we make that choice understanding the consequences. We do not desire for the Government to initiate force on other individuals, so that our choices may be subsidised. If we are lucky enough to have the skills to negotiate maternity/paternity leave as part of our employment contracts, well we may indeed desire such a condition, however if we are not, we will make alternative arrangements. In addition we will voluntarily assist our fellow community members who fall on hard times, and have children that need care.

I am not unaware of the pain of growing up in a poor household. My father was poor as was my mother. My mother was a single parent from the time I was two to the time I was an adult and we lived through many times of hardship. I am intimately aware of the burden and cost that a child can be. I however refuse to endorse a system that uses force to place that burden on others.

If the Federal Coalition wishes to assist potential parents like my fiancee and myself YOU CAN! Decrease federal taxes. Decrease the size and scope of the federal government. Decrease the burdens of the bureaucracy. Leave us to live our lives as we choose. Fix the vertical fiscal imbalance by providing State Governments with the capacity to raise revenue in accordance with their responsibilities, and the ability to coordinate that revenue without Federal strings. Maintain a fiscal policy that does not provoke unneccessary and damaging monetary policy.

By focusing on the core liberal and conservative principles of small government, low taxes, and individual freedom, you can do far more for people like myself and my fiancee than any compulsory and poorly considered maternity leave scheme.

I hope you will consider my position on this matter as you and the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party go forth.

Yours sincerely,
Jake Zanoni

Ross Gittins’ latest effort (published in the SMH today) is a glib attack on libertarians for being strangely silent when they should be shouting from the hilltops about the batts fiasco. The oh so clever punch line is that libertarians can’t actually shout about the batts fiasco because its all the fault of the free market allowing shonks and shysters to murder. HO HUM indeed.

The first half of the article is a reasonable enough outline of libertarianism however once the introductions are completed, Ross quickly deploys some very common strawmen in his attack.

On the face of it, this episode is a free kick for the libertarians: the government intervenes in an industry and creates a host of problems, including a leap in prices, cowboy behaviour, shoddy work, ceiling fires and even deaths.

But to the conscientious libertarian, it’s not that simple. The notion that corner-cutting, cowboy behaviour arises in an industry only when governments intervene with subsidies isn’t credible.

The government’s critics in the opposition, the media and the industry haven’t attacked its decision to offer the subsidy, but rather its failure to implement adequate training, licensing requirements, codes of conduct and inspection of work done.

Their implicit and sometimes explicit assumption has been: any fool could have known the private sector isn’t to be trusted. So the government has been asked to bear all the responsibility for the shoddy work, fires and deaths. Blame it all on nanny, who was asleep on the job.

The problem with this is the assumption that the Federal Coalition speaks for libertarians. WRONG! Of course an Opposition is going to take the argument that lays as much, if not all, of the blame for something on a Government. The argument above is attractive to the Opposition because it serves THEIR political goal. What is their political goal? TO GET ELECTED!

That’s it. Their goal is to get elected, and you better believe they want their hands on the sweet sweet slush fund that is Federal Government expenditure when they get into office. They have zero interest in arguing the case that ‘government, not just the Rudd Government but any government, sucks!’.

But all this is the opposite of what libertarians believe. They believe the private sector is always to be trusted – that rational firms always do a good job, that competition will soon drive the odd cowboy out of the industry and that government regulation of industries almost always does more harm than good.

WRONG! Ross here deploys the libertopia fallacy; the concept that libertarians believe in a magical land of pixies and sugar plums dancing together in harmony, where no bad people exist and everyone is only ever good to each other spreading love and joy joy feelings to all. This is fundamentally not true. Libertarians DO NOT believe that the private sector is always to be trusted. Libertarians understand that the private sector is made up of individuals, some good and some bad, and that you need to do your due diligence. Libertarians just also understand that THE GOVERNMENT IS MADE UP OF THE SAME PEOPLE! In fact, power tends to attract the bad ones. Government intervention does not make things better and the initiation of force is not an appropriate cure for societies ills.

The government says one good thing to emerge from the disaster is that the insulation installation industry is now tightly regulated. It reminds us that deaths occurred in the industry before the subsidy was introduced, that employers had the usual duty of care to their workers and that the industry is covered by state occupational health and safety legislation.

But libertarians have never been enthusiastic about occupational safety laws and have long disapproved of licensing arrangements, which they believe are used by the industry to restrict supply. And whatever happened to individuals accepting responsibility for their own affairs?

Ross I see what you did there.

Libertarians differ on the level of ‘government intervention’ sure, however Ross is misrepresenting the libertarian position, again implying the libertarians solution is relying on a magical land where people become universal paragons of virtue. Libertarians are not opposed to preventing or punishing wrongdoing. This also goes to the whole ‘personal responsibility’ aspect of libertarianism. Shonks are responsible for their wrongdoing as well. However, there is a fundamental difference between protecting people against negligence and fraud, and signing on to any government licensing and regulation. There are a number of methods of punishing people who do the wrong thing and disincentivising such behaviour. Torts, insurance, voluntary industry/product certification boards (yes they do exist). It’s not a matter of being against occupational safety laws, it is a matter of ‘what do those specific laws actually say?’. Not only does licensing become abused by the industry, it is not necessary for protection against wrongdoing. It DOES do more harm than good. Libertarians recognise this because we recognise that a lot of the time we do live in a crapsack world.

Above all, why have the libertarians said so little on an issue so close to their core beliefs? Not wanting to be seen supporting an interventionist Labor government? Or just ducking a hard case?

I can’t speak for what Ross is basing his claims of ‘silence’ on. I haven’t actively searched out every piece of opinion and news on the story. A quick search produced these two Catallaxy pieces:
Why Replace One Failed Program With another
Has The Government Put Another Industry on The Taxpayer Teat

Ultimately, the libertarian position on this fiasco is that the Government NEVER should have been funding the batts in the first place. To address the recent deaths and Ross’ line of attack first, if a government all of a sudden injects a significant amount of money into an industry, that industry is going to sharply balloon in size. This only gives rise to shonks, fly by nighters, provides them with artificial demand, and makes it difficult to provide appropriate industry information and safeguards that do arise under normal circumstances.

Secondly, as the provider of this funding, the Federal Government takes on the mantle of the customer with ‘market power’ andthus did have a responsibility of oversight. We can see that the Government was not able to execute that oversight and this is no surprise. Not only was the funding scheme poorly planned and designed for headlines rather than positive policy outcomes, governments as a concept do not have the incentives to provide proper diligence. It is not the bureaucrats home. It is not Peter Garrett’s home. We can see that despite the matter being brought to Garrett’s attention, he still failed to act. His punishment is reduced responsibilities and the same salary.

In general though and as Ross Gittins knows, libertarians have been decrying the scheme and the associated other dodgy stimulus spending since the very beginning as a flawed and faulty response to the economic downturn, based on political capital and not quality policy outcomes.

On that note, I’m reminded of an Henry Ergas written article in The Australian I recently read demonstrating the gross inefficiency of the home insulation scheme for dealing with carbon emissions. H/T to Robert Wiblin.

The Money Quote:

“EVEN if the pink batt program hadn’t been bungled, it was a waste of money. … What is Treasury’s department, however, is that the subsidies are such poor public policy. That four young people are dead, and thousands of homes seriously exposed to the risk of fire, …is tragic; that this happened because of a program that lacks any credible rationale is a scandal. Let’s start from the beginning. The term energy efficiency has been interpreted by successive governments as meaning reducing households’ use of electricity. Consider the insulation scheme. Improving insulation in existing homes can allow modest reductions in energy use, likely in the order of $100 a year, though as people become accustomed to the new ambient temperature their power usage typically reverts to pre-insulation levels. The result is some improvement in comfort, but a negative return on investment. As for the cost per greenhouse emissions saved, it can be astronomical, with a careful New Zealand study valuing it at $500 to $1000 a tonne of emissions saved a year.
The economics of solar panels in homes are even worse. As a result, costs per tonne of abatement in the solar panels program are very high, at $195 to $434 a tonne, far above the $23 carbon price used in the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme.
To that excess cost must be added the economic loss caused by the taxes used to provide the subsidies. Given this, the sensible policy would be to eliminate these subsidies. Instead, even greater and more permanent subsidies are being provided through a move, co-ordinated in the Council of Australian Governments to generous feed-in tariffs.”

OH SNAP!

If libertarians are being silent, I think it’s time we started shouting.

On a whim I decided to look up why the book was pulled from the shelves and on what basis Kyle Kutasi sued. I’m pleased to say that the answer fits very well with my blog.

Jury to Decide on Meaning of Pimp

RIGHT-WING Liberal powerbroker David Clarke is suing a publishing house for defamation following the release of a book in which he claims he is portrayed as a “Nazi” and a “pimp” who would be willing to prostitute his own daughters to further his political career.

The daughters of the NSW MP, Ann-Marie and Caroline, are also suing Melbourne University Press over the book, The Education of a Young Liberal, written by John Hyde Page.

They claim the book makes them out to be prostitutes of such low moral character that their father solicits for them.

Two recently published judgments in the NSW District Court detail the claims made by the Clarkes and the arguments used by MUP in its defence.

Using the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to bolster its arguments, MUP says the word “pimp” has become a colloquial term that now means “cool” or “socially desirable”.

Judge Judith Gibson sought out Wikipedia to see how the word “pimp” had evolved.

Judge Gibson said it was ultimately up to a jury to decide whether the imputations claimed by the Clarke daughters had been made out.

“The defendant (MUP) notes that ‘pimp’ can also be used as a verb, such as ‘You’re pimped up!’ or ‘Pimp my ride’. This is a reference to customising an automobile, which is made popular by a show Pimp My Ride on MTV,” Judge Gibson said in a written judgment.

“To describe a car as a ‘pimp’ or someone as a ‘pimp daddy’ means ‘popular’ or ‘cool’, originally in a derogatory way, because of the alleged fondness of pimps for wearing excessive jewellery, flashy clothes and travelling in brightly coloured vehicles with animal-print upholstery.”

The chapter in which the author describes a meeting with Mr Clarke is headed “Meeting with Nazis”. Judge Gibson recounted the passage in the book where Mr Hyde Page goes to the meeting to gain “right-wing support for his presidency” of the Young Liberals and that at the end of the talks Mr Clarke spoke “warmly of his daughters”.

The offending line “And did you get a load of Clarke trying to pimp off his daughters? Oi, oi, oi!” is attributed to former Liberal Party member Kyle Kutasi, who was at the meeting with Mr Hyde Page.

Mr Kutasi, who is now married to Ann-Marie Clarke, sued MUP for defamation earlier this year over the same line of text.

MUP settled with Mr Kutasi.

The book, published last year, was withdrawn from sale in March.

Judge Gibson said the book was a good example of a “borderline” case in deciding whether or not the imputations claimed by Ann-Marie and Caroline Clarke could be made.

She said it was clearly “a satirical tell-all book about the adventures of a wide-eyed young innocent discovering, and eventually being disillusioned by, the corrosive impact of party machine politics”.

It is understood MUP is considering appealing against the decisions of Judge Gibson that a number of imputations are to go to a jury.

I told you pimping aint easy. Pimping for freedom or pimping your daughters invites its share of difficulties.

This blog is a living embodiment of the evolution of the word pimp however I very much doubt that Hyde Page was implying that David Clarke was ‘socially popularing’ his daughters out.

I’m more shocked that David Clarke can’t be called a nazi or be implied a pim though. Stupid defamation laws. Stupid nazi pimp David Clarke.

…uh oh.

I am the very model of a modern Libertarian:
I teem with glowing notions for proposals millenarian,
I’ve nothing but contempt for ideologies collectivist
(My own ideas of social good tend more toward the Objectivist).
You see, I’ve just discovered, by my intellectual bravery,
That civic obligations are all tantamount to slavery;
And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation,
Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!

CHORUS:You really must admit it’s a delightful revelation:
To bitch about your taxes is to fight for liberation!

I bolster up my claims with lucubrations rather risible
About the Founding Fathers and the market’s hand invisible;
In fact, my slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes me the very model of a modern Libertarian!

CHORUS:His very slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes him the very model of a modern Libertarian!

All “public wealth” is robbery, we never will accede to it;
You have no rights in anything if you can’t show your deed to it.
(But don’t fear repossession by our Amerind minority:
Those treaties aren’t valid – – Uncle Sam had no authority!)
We realize whales and wolves and moose find wilderness quite vital,
And we’ll give them back their habitats – – if they can prove their title.
But people like unspoiled lands (we too will say “hooray” for them),
So we have faith that someone else will freely choose to pay for them.

CHORUS:Yes, when the parks are auctioned it will be a lucky day for them –
We’re confident that someone else will freely choose to pay for them!

We’ll guard the health of nature by self-interest most astute:
Since pollution is destructive, no one ever will pollute.
Thus factories will safeguard our communities riparian –
I am the very model of a modern Libertarian!

CHORUS:Yes, factories will safeguard our communities riparian,
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!

In short, when I can tell why individual consumers
Know best who should approve their drugs and who should treat their tumors;
Why civilized existence in its intricate confusion
Will be simple and straightforward, absent government intrusion;
Why markets cannot err within the system I’ve described,
Why poor folk won’t be bullied and why rich folk won’t be bribed,
And why all vast inequities of power and position
Will vanish when I wave my wand and utter “competition!” –

CHORUS:He’s so much more exciting than a common politician,
Inequities will vanish when he hollers “Competition!”

– And why my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, “Ridiculous!”,
And why my social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian –
I’ll be the very model of a modern Libertarian!

CHORUS: His novel social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian –
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!

I always liked the original post and found the ensuing controversy ridiculous. Tim at first defended his post but eventually took it down on request by some/all of the featured girls (who probably never dreamed the post would receive the national coverage it did).

I originally asserted that Tim probably felt some frustration, regret, and a desire for self protection (as his actions were condemned by a number of prominent Liberal Party members) which probably contributed at least on a small level. Tim has denied those feelings being a factor and I have edited this post accordingly. I am willing to accept his word as their is not the hard evidence that I falsely recalled, and Tim occasionally does not back away from a fight.

At the end of the day I personally think it’s worth keeping alive, simply so people can see what the fuss was about, and to stick it up the fuddy duddy’s.

So for those who missed it the first time, for those who want a trip down memory lane, and for those who are unaware of the website Spankwire or have a kinky obsession with political nerds, please enjoy.

Coherence of “other-regarding” and “self-regarding” Acts:

Mill maintains a distinction between ‘other’ and ’self’ regarding acts. Self-regarding acts which are harmful should not be prohibited, this he defines to be behaviour which as behaviour only affects oneself or other adults who have consented by their own volition. These activities only affect oneself or the consenting party.

Are there ever acts which are entirely self-regarding that don’t affect others ?

…

*What is Harm?*

Even given Mill’s description people just cannot agree on what constitutes “harm.” We all tend agree on the very few extreme cases – pretty much everyone would agree that murder or assault constitutes harm. But as we move away from the extremes it’s clear that little consensus exists. A religious person thinks the worship of idols is harmful, a housewife thinks lewd jokes and nudity on TV are harmful etc. The harm principle is supposed to free us from the arbitrariness of common morality but instead leads us down a path towards almost complete subjectivity.

I don’t like Mills harm principle and cringe when people use it (especially libertarians) as justification for something. The reason (as Will has elucidated above) is that it is horribly horribly subjective and undefinable.

Take Will’s first comment above on ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’. Will’s above question of ‘are there ever any acts that are self-regarding that don’t affect others? One can then make the argument that ‘supposedly self-regarding’ actions can actually be harmful indirectly to others. Examples range from something as mild as hurt feelings to something like productivity or social costs. Say someone puts forward the argument that people should be free to use drugs as long as they don’t harm another. A rebuttal may be either that that drug user either then causes harm (assault, theft, negligence) BECAUSE of their drug use, and thus there is a causal link between the drug use and the harm. An argument could be made that drug abusers are not productive or require health care, costing society. Or even that the drug users family may suffer emotional turmoil because of the drug abuse (an experience I have gone through).

I don’t personally find those arguments valid however the point is that they can be made, and they can be made because ‘harm’ is difficult to define.

Will goes onto conclude that while the harm principle is meant to free us from the burden of common morality, it merely invites fierce and varied debate over what actually constitutes harm.

This problem renders the harm principle virtually useless as a rhetorical device, and tricky as a solid foundation upon which to render one’s philosophical viewpoints.

I personally thus eschew the ‘harm principle’ for the ‘non-aggression axiom’ that states that people should be free to do as they wish as long as they don’t aggress against another. I then define aggressing as the initiation or threat of physical force.

Of course this (like anything) suffers from similar problems. Anyone who has read Constitution of Liberty will have read F.A. Hayek struggle with defining aggression for a good 5 or 6 pages. However I have found that the phrase ‘initiation of force’ is a far more useful and definitive statement of belief. I tend to not even use the word ‘aggress’ to further avoid the problem of inviting a destracting definitional debate.

I can’t help but notice that Australia’s libertarians and small government conservatives have collectively taken their principles, placed them in a heavy wooden chest, dragged said chest out into the garage, put the chest right at the back of the garage, covered the chest with a table cloth, covered the table cloth with boxes of old books, locked the garage door, and promptly thrown away the key.

I speak of course, of the overwhelming and giddy celebration resulting from the election of Tony Abbott as leader of the Opposition. The reaction has rivalled Obamamania.

…umm, WHAT THE FUCK?

I have watched this unfold with a mixture of emotions; dismay, frustration, amusement, bemusement, rageaholism, and I must admit the occasional self reflective ‘why am I not surprised?’. Despite my apparent emotional flux, I have not felt the inspiration to actually put words down on paper, until now.

My blogging silence on the matter has been shattered by this posting on Larvatus Prodeo – What does a conservative leader of the Liberal Party look like?

But it’s interesting to observe the blue thread that runs through all of Abbott’s pronouncements – a mindset that Father Knows Best. The answer to the question posed by Ben Eltham in New Matilda, writing on the Coalition’s climate change policy [see this post for LP discussion] – “have the Libs lost faith in the market?” – is surely that conservatives don’t necessarily have faith in it. The Howard government’s practice, in many respects, was as much conservative as neo-liberal, if not more – an increasingly large state, a dirigiste approach to doling out public money to corporations, all manner of attempted pro-family social engineering, and so forth. To some degree, the era of 80s bipartisanship on ‘economic reform’ left an institutional and legal bias towards economic liberalism in state institutions; Treasury, the Productivity Commission, competition law, and so on. But with a lazy Treasurer, for most of the time, Howardism only used economic liberalism as a fig leaf.

I think what we’re seeing now, with Tony Abbott, is that fig leaf being discarded.

We’re back to old fashioned paternalism – faith, country, and trust in your betters. And in the economic sphere, Abbott, who knows nothing much of economics, is happy for the state to sit down and carve up the pie in consultation with his preferred interest groups. All this is really classic National Party stuff.

What’s perhaps astonishing on the surface, at least, is how little we’re hearing from the so-called libertarians and classical liberals about Abbott’s lack of faith in the market. Could it be that they’re mostly more interested in anti-Labor partisanship than their own ostensible creed?

I find it very concerning when the libertarian truth is coming from the blog Larvatus Prodeo, but such is the world we walk in.

Most egregious are my fellow travellers in the Liberal Party, although that I suppose is to be expected. The simple fact of Major Party politics is that the Party quickly morphs from a VEHICLE for change and ideology, to a sporting team.

I remember being at the MCG at the 2009 Grand Final as my beloved Cats (who had been behind all day) started to creep closer and closer in the fourth quarter. My adrenalin and excitement increased as the gap got smaller and smaller. When the Cats hit the front deep in the fourth quarter I nearly lept out of my skin with joy. I can only assume my Liberal brethren are going through a similar emotional journey as the Newspoll numbers have slowly moved out of the shitcan for the Liberals.

Abbott was elected on the back of the Emissions Trading Scheme issue and I certainly stand with all who felt that Malcolm Turnbull’s position was horrifically wrong. I do not like Malcolm Turnbull and I did not like him before the ETS. I did not like him the night of budget reply 2008 where everyone gave Turnbull a standing ovation for his big government, bureaucracy creating, authoritarian policy laden speech. [smug] Everyone except me of course [/smug].

Is the ETS enough to truly celebrate the election of Abbott though? Is the election of an Abbott led Liberal Party something worth celebrating?

Abbott is a man who embodies everything that was wrong with the Howard Government and nothing that was right. Abbott is not a man who believes in the free market. He is not an economic liberal by any stretch. He does not believe in small government. He does not believe in economic freedom. He is so far removed from those beliefs that even the notoriously ‘flexible’ small government conservatives of this country have decried him…up until three months ago of course.

There is only so far that ‘keeping the ALP out’ and ‘best we have’ and ‘better than the alternative’ can take you. Far from joy inspiring, far from celebratory, those excuses ‘practical and pragmatic’ positions are more a manifestation of essential hopelessness.

If Abbott is the best libertarians and small government conservatives can hope for it is not something to celebrate, it is something to mourn.

By all means, convince me otherwise. I’d love to hear some explanations.

I promised an update after I got my first one and here it is. Of course, I got my first tattoo in…. late October so I am perhaps a little late. Oh well, away we go.

LIBERTAS
The first tattoo I got was LIBERTAS on the inside of my left forearm. If you are friends with me on Facebook you have probably already seen it however here are some photos for your enjoyment.

Pic 1 – Freshly tattooed and covered in plastic cling wrap. Note the remnants of blood leaking out.
Pic 2 – A day or two afterwards. The tattoo is sort of shiny. It’s actually what I would describe as a very moist scab. This lasted about a week and a half to two weeks. Gradually the scabs would just slide off naturally (it’s very important that you don’t pick them off yourself).
Pic 3 – I just took that using my Iphone so I had a pic of the finished product.

So overall very happy with it. It’s basic but that’s what I wanted. I wanted it to be easily readable and just stand out. I’m going back on Saturday to get INVICTUS on my right forearm. Update to come.

Two New Tattoo Ideas
Came up with two new tattoo ideas that are comic book inspired. Watchmen’s Rorschach and Marvel’s Captain America. They both serve as inspiration, however one serves also as a stark reminder and warning. Try to guess which one.

Pennywise – Fuck Authority
omeday you gotta find another way, you better right your mind
And live by what you say
Today is just another day unless you set your sights and try to find a way
I say fuck authority
Silent majority
Raised by the system
Now it’s time to rise against them
We’re sick of your treason
Sick of your lies
Fuck no, we won’t listen
We’re gonna open your eyes
Frustration, domination, feel the rage of a new generation,
We’re livin’, we’re dyin’ and we’re never gonna stop, stop tryin’
Stop tryin’
Stop tryin’, stop tryin’

You know the time is right to take control,
We gotta take offense against the status quo
No way, not gonna stand for it today, fight for your rights,
It’s time we had our say

I say fuck authority
Silent majority
Raised by the system
Now it’s time to rise against them
We’re sick of your treason
Sick of your lies
Fuck no, we won’t listen
We’re gonna open your eyes
Frustration, domination, feel the rage of a new generation,
We’re livin’, we’re dyin’, we’re sick and tired of the endless liein’ Destroy,
Enjoy, your fucking world is our new toy, dominate, eliminate,
Your gonna feel the wrath, wrath of hate?

Fuck authority
Silent majority
Raised by the system
Now it’s time to rise against them
We’re sick of your treason
Sick of your lies
Fuck no, we won’t listen
We’re gonna open your eyes
Frustration, domination, feel the rage of a new generation,
We’re livin’, we’re dyin’ and we’re never gonna stop, stop tryin’
Stop tryin’
Stop tryin’, stop tryin’

Dethklok – Dethharmonic
I want to keep my money
And give away absolutely nothing
To the government who moderates my spending
and obliterates depending on what time of the year
brutality is near

in the form of income tax
I’d rather take a fucking axe
to my face, blow up this place

with you all in it, I’d do it in a minute

If I could write off your murder
I’d save all of my receipts
because I’d rather you be dead
than lose a tiny shred of what I made this fiscal year

I’d rather you be dead than ponder parting with my second home
I’d rather you be dead than consider not opening a restaurant

I’d rather you be dead
I’d rather you be dead

Prepare the laser-beam
I’m gonna use it tonight

Engage the laser-beam
It’s gonna end your life

I’m gonna use it tonight

If I could write off your murder
I’d save all of my receipts
because I’d rather you be dead
than lose a tiny shred of what I made this fiscal year

I’d rather you be dead than ponder parting with my second home
I’d rather you be dead than consider not opening a restaurant
I’d rather you be dead
I’d rather you be dead

Be dead now X3
Be dead

Judas Priest – Breaking the Law
There I was completely wasting, out of work and down
all inside it’s so frustrating as I drift from town to town
feel as though nobody cares if I live or die
so I might as well begin to put some action in my life

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law

So much for the golden future, I can’t even start
I’ve had every promise broken, there’s anger in my heart
you don’t know what it’s like, you don’t have a clue
if you did you’d find yourselves doing the same thing too

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law

You don’t know what it’s like!!

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law

Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law