President Clinton wrote an op-ed today regarding yesterday’s anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and, as though he was implying a reference to the Tea Party protest movement of today, opined that the “anti-government” types are motivated by “the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them.” The BELIEF that…?? Well, as an “anti-government” type, I must affirm that, yes, the greatest threat to our freedom IS our government!! And not just the government, but the biased media who act as the government officials’ official stenographers. It is THEY who are dangerous and the biggest threats our freedom faces. In fact, the American Founders were “anti-government”!! Presidents Bush (either one) and Obomber wouldn’t recognize the Founders’ concepts and ideas if they fell over them! (Bush and Obomber have fallen over many things, if you know what I mean.)
Government—or, more precisely, the State—has never been a protector of our liberty. It is the State (particularly the U.S. government) that has been violating our liberty more and more since the Founding, and it is the government that has made us less safe—NOT protecting us! The Government has been the chief trespasser of our property and robber of our wealth. Clinton is nuts, as well as ignorant and corrupt.
And the Tea Party movement’s critics have also been accusing “anti-government” types of being “conspiracy theorists.” When the U.S. Congress rushes through a 2000+ page medical and insurance fascism bill, with all the bribes and back-door deals and rams it into law in the dead of night, that’s not “conspiring?”
If the the gangsters and hooligans in Congress weren’t engaging in “conspiracies” then I don’t know who is! Jeepers! And this guy, Stupak (When I first heard the name “Stupak,” I thought they were talking about the sound a stapler makes.), I wonder what they paid him (or threatened him with) to make him change his mind.
This is what you get when you give an institution any kind of monopoly and especially the power of compulsion over others. Our freedom and our rights to life and liberty were somewhat secured and assured around the time of the American Revolution—and the Founders even came up with a document that recognized that freedom and those rights: The Declaration of Independence, that even described our right to “throw off” a tyrannical government and “abolish it”—but our rights and our freedom began to dwindle as soon as the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land. All the Constitution did was establish the federal government and allow officials of the federal government to have the power of compulsion over us and the power of institutionalized monopolies that forbade fellow citizens from entering particular fields of endeavor that were monopolized by that government, in which case it’s time to be thrown in the hoosegow.
These are the main reasons why I wrote about this November’s elections, or any elections, “More Rearranging of Deck Chairs,” because that’s what these elections are.
Last Fall was when I became familiar with economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s articles and his views, and the concept of the government’s compulsory territorial monopoly of protection and judicial decision-making, and that’s the time that I did big Edith Bunker impressions, “Oh, NOW I get it!”, etc. I am glad that Prof. Hoppe established his Property and Freedom Society, an organization of mostly “cultural conservatives,” and whose statement of principles includes:
The Property and Freedom Society stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association—which logically implies the right to not associate with, or to discriminate against—anyone in one’s personal and business relations—and unconditional free trade. It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form, whether of “outcome” or “opportunity,” and it has an outspoken distaste for politics and politicians. As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises had identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: “What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive. … There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government.”…..
And I agree with those principles, recognizing the rights of the individual, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to freedom of association and freedom of contract. Notice how it also mentions the right to “discriminate.” Under the umbrella of the individual’s right of self-ownership and the right to control one’s own private property, one has a right to associate with (including establishing a voluntary contract with) or not associate with whomever one wishes, and the right not to be forced to associate with someone with whom one does NOT wish to associate with. For example, the 1964-65 Civil Rights Act (and similar laws) applied to both public and private property. It should only apply to public property, including the public transportation, government-owned buildings and facilities, parks, etc. It should NOT include restaurants and other businesses and properties that are privately owned. The owner of private property has a right to include or exclude whomever one wants on one’s own privately owned property, and for whatever reason. If a business such as a restaurant is referred to as a “public accommodation,” it’s still a privately owned business. The more “general public” one’s business deals with, or the larger the business, still doesn’t make it “more publicly owned,” otherwise have the State buy it from the owner. If a Black lady in Roxbury, Massachusetts owns a store or restaurant, and she doesn’t want Whites in there, that’s her right to keep them out. Any forcing of people onto her business or property (by law, police, etc.), against her will, is trespassing. And if she doesn’t want males, or children, or Catholics, it is her RIGHT to say “You can’t come into my business.” And I am not a racist, because I don’t care what people’s skin color is (unlike President Obama, Chris Matthews and others of their ignorant ilk, who are literally obsessed with people’s skin color), but, my point is, separating private from public property is necessary to understanding what freedom is all about.
Bottom line: The only one with actual, legitimate “rights” is the individual, who has a right to be free from the aggression of others, in one’s person and one’s property. Unfortunately, the idea of “civil rights” has turned that around to give people the right to force themselves onto or into the business or property of others against their will, and that’s aggression. Aggression is immoral, no matter what. The Civil Rights Act should only apply to public property and government-run functions, NOT private property or businesses.
So, in the workplace, employers (in the private sector) have a right to hire and fire whomever they want and for whatever reason, but laws that were made from ignorance restrict their rights. For example, Boston Symphony Orchestra music director James Levine has had one medical problem after another since he began with the BSO in 2004, and it looks like, because he has been absent so much now, they might terminate his music directorship (although it may not have been so easy for them to do that had he remembered to sign his contract!).
Of course, the violation of freedom regarding the aforementioned situations comes in with the use of armed police to enforce the laws that violate our rights and freedom. A lot of people are very authoritarian and are pro-police. The Obommunists now are the former ’60s anti-police radicals. While the conservative right still approves of using police for this or that, now the left loves the police, as we will see when the peaceful Tea Party protesters will experience just how much those Stalinists President Obomber and Stinker of the House Nancy Lugosi don’t like their authority and control being challenged or protested. At LewRockwell.com, Will Grigg has one article after another that describes why we might want to question reliance on police as the ones to protect our liberty or safety. Just this week Will had one about the “police looters” at Hurricane Katrina. And yesterday Wendy McElroy had a post about a recent police brutality incident. We have a right to be “anti-government” and protest peacefully, like the Tea Partiers (unlike Bill Ayers who used not only violence but murder as a way to express his protest).
WTKK radio host Michael Graham himself was arrested and thrown in the hoosegow last year because of driving with a revoked license. He said the police officers were civil and cordial which I don’t doubt. Of course, he shouldn’t have even been bothered by the police, and don’t get me started again on the driving stuff. Let me make THIS perfectly clear: Driving is a RIGHT, not a “privilege.” Graham’s freedom of movement and right to go about his business was grossly violated in this incident. Just look at all the stress that these government officials caused him, and I’ll bet it was stressful. All of that kind of thing should not be tolerated in a free society. The police- staters out there just don’t get it.
Another thing about Michael Graham is that he has become a Professor of Campaigning at his new political Candidates School. He teaches people who are interested in running for public office just how it’s done. I don’t know exactly what good that’s going to do anyone, since these elections are Rearranging of Deck Chairs. When his students learn how to run for office, then they will learn how to manipulate their voters into believing that their legislative actions are actually in the voters’ best interests, and then they will learn how to stick legalese and bureaucratese into legislation to get away with more and more theft and trespassing, and that’s how things go.
In fact, just this morning, a lady called Glenn Beck’s show, saying she wanted him to run for president, and gave a list of things “we need in a president.” And Beck said he could never get elected, and he gave some of his suggestions of what we need in a president. Actually, we really don’t need a president. We don’t need to be “led” by someone through life. We need freedom. Each one of us needs the freedom to achieve what we want to achieve in life and lead our own lives, without the intrusions of others. That’s what we need.