The Non-Aggression Principle should ALWAYS apply to parenting.

I just saw a girl practically dragging her Golden puppy by its leash. If this is how you handle a 2mo. old, difficult or not,

YOU ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO RAISE A CHILD.

As long as you think force is an appropriate way to teach, you should not be in the position to do so. Go buy a goddamn potted plant or a goldfish or something. You do not have the right to treat anyone with that level of disrespect and if those evolution-perfected puppy eyes don’t make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, you are probably dead inside and should not own any sort of living thing, much less take on the responsibility of raising an animal which absolutely must be nurtured and a breed which depends so heavily on affection and intellectual stimulation.

If someone just doesn’t know how to train their dog, I’d be more than happy to help teach them. But the failure to seek out help is profoundly immature and detrimental to the psychological development of your dog/child/any other warm-blooded animal.

Seriously, if y’all ever want any advice on pets, my ask box is open. After I accepted I couldn’t aspire to become a dog, I spent the rest of my childhood training child-aggressive dogs. I have a socially acceptable addiction.

hipsterlibertarian: From the article: Women tend to vote for Democrats and non-libertarian Republicans over candidates who more consistently advocate limited government. On an anecdotal level, it’s not uncommon in the youth liberty movement where I work to joke about how an upcoming event will be awesome because there will be “at least one girl for every 30 guys!” (We do actually have a much better ratio than that, I promise.) Some of this discrepancy is perhaps due to a problem of messaging to which libertarians are especially prone: In focusing on the rights and value inherent to the individual, it’s easy for us to forget that the average citizen thinks of herself (and is thought of by those around her) as a member of a number of social categories: female, Muslim, middle class, Hispanic. And, for better or worse, these perceptions influence both the way a person thinks she “should” think about politics and the way others expect her to think about politics. So whether we like it or not, if the liberty movement seeks to continue to grow in popularity, libertarians must learn to speak to the many distinct audiences who may not yet support our message. With women, many say, this messaging problem is particularly tricky because apparently “women are natural socialists”: We want everyone to share and everyone to get along. We are nurturers, and we expect the “haves” to take care of the “have-nots,” the strong to take care of the weak, and the brave to protect the others. … We want everyone to like us and we want everyone to like each other. Men, to put it simply, are more independent in thought and action. Now, this “women are natural socialists” line is one I’ve heard a lot — and one which I don’t find particularly helpful in this or any political debate. After all, if the gentler sex just can’t help loving big government, why bother their pretty little heads arguing with them about it? No use fighting nature, and anyway, dinner will boil over while she tries to think! But the modern liberty movement was actually founded by three (or four?) women, so theoretically libertarianism shouldn’t be too much of a stretch for women today. What’s good for the gander should be good for the goose, and a visit to any Ron Paul rally will make clear that the ideas of liberty appeal to a very wide range of people from all walks of life — all social categories, if you will. Read the whole thing here. Lovely, as always, Bonnie! c:

Apropos to today apparently being International Women’s Day, I’ve got a new piece up at the Daily Caller about why women should be libertarians.