Enemies of Private Property

Many blogs have "Markets in Everything"-type posts; I instead will have "Enemies of Private Property" posts. If I come upon a more clever title, I'll use it.

My inaugural jerk of mankind is none other than Martin Luther King, Jr. I am absolutely tired of race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, all the way down to "libertarians/conservatives" such as Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, praising this enemy of private property. King did not stop short of discouraging Jim Crow laws and segregation on state-owned grounds; on the contrary, King lobbied heavily for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which destroys the precious notion of private property probably most effectively in Title II:

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation... any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests... any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises... any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment."

I need not go any further with this analysis because it is obvious that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made absolute haste in destroying the definition of private and public property. The necessity of the ability to exclude others from privately-owned property is made perfectly clear when we realize that without this power, anybody could at any time rape our bodies, sleep in our beds, and drink our beer without reservation. State education has so baldly obfuscated this obvious point that to say anything negative about King is simply heresy.

King was also supportive of economic reparations and the idea of some form of "economic justice," which has long been popular amongst intellectuals and politicians. I need not talk about this because anybody not under the influence of heroine can point out the fallacies in such thinking.

Narcissism to the nth Degree

The more I study math, the more I come across theorems with special names, often indicating who came up with the theorem in the first place. Consider the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality or the Rao-Blackwell theorem, or even the notorious Pythagorean theorem (catchy, aren't they?). Econometrics is loaded with these oh-so-cleverly named theorems, and I'm sure the physical science world is, too.

Now, because these theorems are factual statements about the real world, which embody all available knowledge that we have about it at present, and since these theorems in no way changes the composition of reality, I conjecture that Rao, Blackwell, Cauchy, and the rest of the Harlem Globetrotters were likely a bunch of otherwise trifling and paltry dweebs in the social realm, whose only hope of losing their virginity was for a hefty fee at a whore house. Instead of possessing even a shred of modesty and prudery, these pretentious boobs were impelled to slap their name brands onto the math homework of every enervated senior math student across the globe. Let's get it straight: These are not "Newton's Laws," and Poisson the man was irrelevant to the existence of the actual distribution. That is, these factual statements and equalities exist independent of the men whom discover them, and so it's quite silly to me that anybody should name these observations after themselves.

So here's to the guys who just weren't good enough to leave their mark anywhere else in life, who couldn't even stop their mentally-retarded bed partners from aborting the one modest chance they had at passing on their last names. Now, I'm taking a break from reproductive success to memorize your 'glory.'