Do you support Black Lives Matter? Here is an explanation for why no one should support the movement. They may be well-intentioned, but their policy proposals would actually create the opposite effect of what they want: the loss of millions of black lives. ## Some people think if you dislike BLM then you're ignorant at best and racist at worst. If BLM simply meant "black lives matter" then okay I’d largely agree *(although I don’t love the message in of itself because in my mind just because you have a pulse doesn’t mean you matter. Maybe instead of society telling young people that “you matter” (leave that for Grandma) we should say “you can matter!”) *but moving on my main problem with BLM is that is also means... * F*ck the police. * Abolish the police. https://twitter.com/DMVBlackLives/status/1268903712581464066 * Abolish free speech as it pertains to race, i.e. "hate speech" * White people are racist by default and therefore need to shut up and listen to people with darker skin who may or may not be educated in politics. * America was created by racists and therefore will always be racist. * Republicans are racist. * And ironically, the state is systemically racist therefore we must give more power to the state so it can take even more control over our education, housing, healthcare, food, transportation, etc. For one or all of those reasons, we shouldn’t support BLM. H*ll is paved with good intentions. And to hammer home my point, when the Democrat Mayor Jacob Frey came before the almighty BLM protestors *(the protestors weren't even nice enough to let him get up on the platform to address the crowd), *he talked about his own "brokenness" and how the *“systemic racist system needs to be revamped” *and how the *“police union needs to be put in its place”*, but as soon as he disagreed with abolishing the police altogether, which is an absolutely absurd proposition unless you want these cities that are already overrun by gang violence to be controlled by them, then the lead BLM protestor shouted at him to, "Get the f*** out of here!" https://twitter.com/SanaSaeed/status/1269407893406826496 Everyone then started chanting SHAME as he walked away like we live in the literal Game of Thrones. (black lives matter explained, black lives matter video explained) Not only is BLM dangerously wrong here whereby if they succeeded in abolishing the police department you’d actually see millions of black people dead in the streets as gangs fight it out in turf wars, but BLM is so arrogant about their wrongness. Your right to be upset doesn’t supersede my right to think. If you believe in the continued existence of police officers then join me in telling BLM to, "Please go away." ## This video is not a book so don't expec ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdLKZOFXKIs

The left sometimes asks the right, “What vision do you offer for the future?” I empathize with the question because after all, conservatives aren’t promising “free” healthcare, housing, university, etc. in the name of “compassion” or “equality.” Conservatives tend to focus on why “free” is bad and suggest “tax cuts and deregulation” are better, which isn’t particularly persuasive to people who don’t pay taxes nor own much. We need to offer our own concrete conservative vision for the future that young people can grasp onto and fight for. So what do we offer? We offer the future! Specifically, the future promised to us in the 1960s… If you asked a scientist in the 1960s where he’d think we’d be by 2021 he would’ve envisioned flying cars and a colonized Mars. What happened?! Well, to see what could’ve been it’s useful to think about an economic sector that did take off: computer science. Computer technology rapidly improved to the point of what once was considered science fiction because the government stayed largely hands-off as it remains one of the least regulated parts of our economy. The internet has been the “Wild West” for better or worse, but largely better (although the regulatory state is starting to rear its ugly head here too). There’s a myth that defense spending in itself drove much of our computer revolution. If this was the case then the most innovative countries in the world would’ve been those who had the largest defense budgets such as the Soviet Union and China. It’s true though that when the federal government has a specific objective goal such as “make an atom bomb” or “land on the moon” and creates a new well-financed startup to achieve it then this can spark technological growth in much the same way as a well-financed venture capitalist or self-financed businessman could. The problem though is when these government startups morph into government departments, i.e. the Manhattan Project morphing into the Department of Energy, whereby the driving force is no longer innovation, but force itself. "I think we’ve had a lot of innovation in computers, information technology, Internet, mobile Internet in the world of bits. Not so much in the world of atoms, supersonic travel, space travel, new forms of energy, new forms of medicine, new medical devices, etc. " I’d argue the reason we haven’t had as much innovation in other areas is because of federal interference. The more regulations the higher the barrier to entry is and the more the federal government funds R&D then the more private sector competitors are priced out whereby publicly financed research brain-drains top researchers from private research, therefore, incentivizing many of America’s top res ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nYA-F3jzyU