It's not paving the roads.

in #politics2 months ago

Failed F-35 Jet: $1.7+ trillion.
Failed War on Drugs: $1.0+ trillion.
Failed War on Terror: $8.0+ trillion.
People failing to understand how the Federal government actually uses their taxes: Priceless.

P.S. If you want to get a sense of my principles and values in a succinct book, check out The Definitive Guide to Libertarian Voluntaryism over at:


#taxationistheft #libertarian #taxes #endthewarondrugs #nowar


This is something that bugs me; the F-35 isn't actually a failure. In fact, as with most weapons, my main complaint is that my money paid for the damn thing, but I cannot buy one even if I could afford it, not that I have any desire to own a jet (I'd much rather own a bush plane).

Nonetheless, 90% of the horror stories about the F-35 originate from a salty charlatan named Pierre Sprey, who was the kingpin of the "reformist" movement until his death is 2021. These "reformists" are to the military what "progressives" are to politics, and what positively pisses me off is that these people are nominally anti-war, but in telling infinite and endless lies, they make the war pigs look good by comparison. My foul-mouthed alter ego ranted about this at length some months ago.

Edit: now that I think about it, everyone should watch this:

Showing the F-35 working is the best evidence. It's a failure.

Even if that's true, the A-10 and V-22 are bigger failures, but everyone insists on continuing to use them, despite no longer being effective, if they ever were to begin with. The modernisation kit for the A-10 costs more per unit than the F-35, that's how laughably obsolete the old hardware is at this point. Besides, if you adjust for inflation, the most expensive aircraft the US has ever produced was the F-15. Not that we need to be using these things so damn much anyway, I'm just saying that the old stuff isn't any better.

I'll put it this way: the arguments that "reformists" use against developing better weapons for the military (note that whether or not standing militaries should even exist are not part of this argument) are the exact same arguments that hoplophobes use against civilians like us owning modern "assault rifles," and perpetuate the myth that the Second Amendment applies only to flintlocks. New technology scares these people. "Fudds," I believe @jacobtothe calls them.

It's a good reminder of how much central planning wastes.

Agreed. However, I have started to notice that statists will jump at any chance to discredit the entirety of a dissident's claims if we don't get our facts straight, which is why I think the military luddites who style themselves as "reformists" are actually a pro-war psyop masquerading as anti-war voices in order to discredit pacifists.