Skip to content

Month: February 2015

Some More Common Sense, Truth and Wisdom

Harvey Silverglate discusses the new panic: campus sex assaults.

Jacob Hornberger clarifies whether or not a war of aggression is a crime.

Brandon Smith writes about a moral code for a post-collapse world.

Patrice Lewis has the simple secret to surviving any crisis.

Chris Rossini on Twitter payoff: the ideas of liberty vs. the mainstream.

Kurt Nimmo on U.S. gov’s attempts to use ISIS fear and propaganda to censor social media.

Ryan McMaken on how truly free markets help the poor.

John Tamny says that happy immigrant inflows prove the U.S. long ago won the “War on Poverty.”

And Joel Poindexter writes about what jobs have to do with terrorism.

On Hunter S. Thompson’s Impact

Jim Karger has this interesting article on Hunter S. Thompson who apparently died 10 years ago today. Thompson’s reaction to 9/11 was that of those who understand how government bureaucrats and their obedient sheeple followers and believers respond to crises: more totalitarianism under the pretense of protecting us, bring it on, baby. And Jim Karger shows how the tyrants’ and their sheeple’s response to 9/11 and responses to mass shootings such as Sandy Hook call for more gun control, more disarming of the civilians and making them more defenseless while the gubmint stocks up on their guns and ammo. (See the book Death by Government by R.J. Rummel for more info.)

Karger’s article reminded me of an interview of Hunter S. Thompson conducted by the late talk radio host Jerry Williams around 1972 when Williams was on WBZ in Boston. The interview is online at JerryWilliams.org, in 2 parts. Clicking the link opens a new media player window.

Part 1

Part 2

What Is the Libertarian Solution for Ukrainians?

Robert Wenzel of Target Liberty has some very good points in his post on how libertarians should view the Ukraine issue. However, he loses touch with genuine libertarian principles toward the end when he writes: “When it comes down to Ukraine, we must only look at who is helping separation from unwanted governments and who is not. In the case of Ukraine, the U.S. is supporting the regime that wants to prevent separation and Russia is supporting the separatists, Thus, the only possible stand for a libertarian in this conflict is to cheer on Putin’s Russia in aiding the separatists.” No, cheering on Putin’s government military forces is not the “only possible stand” for a libertarian, in my view.

By “Putin’s Russia,” we are really talking about the Russian government and its military forces and their interventions in Ukraine. I don’t think we are talking about any private civilian mercenaries from Russia who are voluntarily going to the aid of the Ukrainian people. Rather, it is Russia’s government military intervening. And with the weaponry and violence those government forces are using to “help” the separatists, just how helpful are they really going to be? What are they and Putin going to do with the “freed” separatists after such a “separation” has occurred? Let them have their freedom? (Yes, governments worldwide and their militaries have been known for letting people have their freedom, for sure.)

So, my own view is that I will not cheer on Putin, Russian soldiers or the “little green men without patches” that VP Biden refers to. I will cheer on civilians in Ukraine who attempt to get out from the control and rule of Kiev but also resist the controllers of the Kremlin. I will cheer on Ukrainians, Crimeans, Donetskians and anyone else in those regions taking any armaments, guns and bullets, bazookas, tanks, whatever it takes, to defend their freedom, their families, their property (such as it is in those areas — not exactly bastions of private property rights even since the fall of the Soviet Union), from any government tyrants and their enforcers, from Kiev, the Kremlin, the U.S. government, whatever. Remember, as I have mentioned before, the early Americans wrote in their 2nd Amendment of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” NOT the right of the government to keep and bear arms.” And that right is a natural human right which pre-exists any government, and it applies to all human beings, not just Americans.

Now, regarding the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Russian government’s interventions into Ukraine, or the Russians’ claim on any territory of Ukraine or rule over the Ukrainian people, I wrote last year,

Ron Paul recently stated that secession is good, in the context of  the Crimea situation. However, he also stated that Putin “has some law on his side,” referring to contracts and treaties, regarding Russia’s naval base there. Well, but we’re talking about a government naval base, not a building or land purchased by a group of specific private individuals or organizations in which participants voluntarily agreed to setting that up and voluntarily funding it. You can say that those who agreed to such contracts were bureaucrats of the State, appointed by the people, but not all the people of Russia or Crimea, and the funding of it was certainly not based on voluntarily contributed payments. Therefore, in my view such “contracts” are invalid. The people of Crimea ought to seize the property in question away from the Russian exploiters.

And in that post I quoted Murray Rothbard who had explained the moral grounds for such seizures. Now, I am not suggesting that people risk their lives and seize property, I am merely providing some Rothbardian theory as to the moral grounds for doing so. Here is that Rothbard quote:

Let us now apply our libertarian theory of property to the case of property in the hands of, or derived from, the State apparatus. The libertarian sees the State as a giant gang of organized criminals, who live off the theft called “taxation” and use the proceeds to kill, enslave, and generally push people around. Therefore, any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible. Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty. In the case of the State, furthermore, the victim is not readily identifiable as B, the horse-owner. All taxpayers, all draftees, all victims of the State have been mulcted. How to go about returning all this property to the taxpayers? What proportions should be used in this terrific tangle of robbery and injustice that we have all suffered at the hands of the State? Often, the most practical method of de-statizing is simply to grant the moral right of ownership on the person or group who seizes the property from the State. Of this group, the most morally deserving are the ones who are already using the property but who have no moral complicity in the State’s act of aggression. These people then become the “homesteaders” of the stolen property and hence the rightful owners.

More Snow, More Articles to Read

Jacob Hornberger gets to the heart of the matter as to why public (i.e. government) schooling should be replaced by the free market.

Laurence Vance has a thing or two to say about NATO.

Mac Slavo on the curious nature of a fiery NY train crash in which all 5 people killed were noteworthy figures.

Fred Reed on the ruling bureaucrats and their fascist little PC minions who want to censor the Internet.

Richard Ebeling asks, Is America still on F.A. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”?

Mikael Thalen with an article on Obama giving jihadists the ability to order air strikes.

Sheldon Richman writes about foreign policy failure everywhere.

Becky Akers on the ABCs of anarchy, the Bible, and Christianity.

Ryan McMaken has these free-market vaccination preferences.

Robert Murphy says that private property is the only solution to the vaccine controversy.

Catherine Frompovich on the facts or fibs of the MMR vaccine insert.

Dr. Gary Kohls asks, What’s behind Big Pharma’s freak-out media blitz over measles?

Jon Rappoport on what Sharyl Attkisson told him about vaccines.

Lew Rockwell’s classic speech on why there shouldn’t be a President’s Day (or a President).

Wendy McElroy has this article on the political correctness of “sex” vs. “gender.”

Lawrence Reed on the progressive cliche, “Profit is evidence of suspicious behavior.”

John Whitehead isn’t ready to break up with America just yet (as bad as it is now).

Jörg Guido Hülsmann on why the Austrian understanding of money and banks is so important.

And Chris Rossini on the emperor and the entrepreneur.

A New Update on Justina Pelletier

Justina Pelletier is the now-16-year-old Connecticut girl who was being treated for Mitochondrial Disease, but when transferred to Massachusetts to the Children’s Hospital her case was then seized by psychiatrists who took her off her medical treatment and put her into mental health facilities, and they had the Department of Children and Families take custody of her away from her parents. Their irresponsible actions caused Justina’s condition to deteriorate. All in the name of those psychiatrists’ favored “behavior modification” studies, for which they are reliant upon government research grants. I have written about her story several times here, particularly in this post and you can search this blog for “Justina Pelletier” if you are interested in reading subsequent updates.

Here is an interview that Howie Carr did with Justina’s father, Lou Pelletier, who describes the dishonest dealings by Children’s Hospital doctors and the DCF bureaucrats, and their several conflicts of interest, and Mr. Pelletier names names as well.

There are other cases similar to this one, such as the two sisters Kayla and Hannah Diegel taken away by Arizona “child welfare” bureaucrats, which apparently endangered Hanna’s medical condition. Natural News lists several other medical kidnappings by hospitals and government bureaucrats. And in this post I mentioned the many horrible cases in Massachusetts. There are also the hundreds of missing children in the Massachusetts welfare system, and the hundred more now dead.

In June of last year Justina Pelletier was finally allowed, by a judge, to return home to her family in Connecticut. But in November she had to go back to the hospital because of some new issues with her condition.

Following that news in November, the only news I had heard about Justina Pelletier was from the Twitter of Rev. Patrick Mahoney, a close associate and advocate for Justina. In December he tweeted that Justina and the Pelletiers needed an extra prayer at that time, but then on Christmas he tweeted that Justina was returning home for Christmas, and Rev. Mahoney posted a photo of Mr. Pelletier carrying Justina.

In this newest update, it appears that Justina is still home but she still has chronic problems. Two years ago this week she seemed to be doing just fine until the moment her case was taken over by psychiatrists and her condition deteriorated after that. I hope that the Pelletiers are going to sue the Children’s Hospital for the damage they have done, and I believe that criminal charges for hospital staff and DCF bureaucrats such as endangerment, false imprisonment and kidnapping will also be in order.

Anti-Capitalist Conservatives Are Very Worried about Immigration and “Amnesty”

Conservatives seem to be anguished over Obama’s immigration policy and “amnesty,” and some of them are concerned that such government policies will kill off the GOP but also conservatism as a philosophy. Some conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly are correct that Obama and Democrats want to bring in as many foreigners as possible to add them to the Democrat voter rolls. But that doesn’t have as much to do with immigration as it has to do with the Democrats’ power-grabbing, for which they use the illicit welfare state apparatus to lure in the new voters.

But the Republicans are joining in the free-for-all, too, you know. Given that Republicans in general have no moral conscience when it comes to protections of private wealth and property, of course they will join in the government’s luring of foreigners with welfare and handouts to try to get new GOP voters. Given that the welfare state (and the warfare state) is based on theft and coercion, a policy which most Republicans approve of, of course the actual free-market capitalists among the conservative movement (if any actually still exist!) have something to be concerned about. (See Laurence Vance on the Republicans’ cluelessness on taxes, their love of government control of healthcare, and their low ranking in the Freedom Index.)

But regarding this problem that many conservatives seem to have with immigration, no it is not to do with “illegal” immigration, it is to do with immigration and foreigners. This morning I was listening to an apparent rebroadcast of Jeff Kuhner on WRKO, just for a few minutes. And it was in those few minutes that I was reminded why I try not to listen to Jeff Kuhner. These conservatives can say what they want about “illegal” immigration, but it really is all about immigration, period. And I know Kuhner’s a self-proclaimed “nationalist,” but in his few minutes of ranting against immigration and calling the Obama immigration amnestyites “fascists,” I’m saying, talk about the fascist pot calling the kettle black! It is this government control over immigration which is fascist, as well as socialist.

Now, many already know that this government control over immigration of foreigners is a socialist policy, in which government bureaucrats usurp the entire territory’s matters of population control. But such a policy of government control is fascist, in which fascism, in my view, consists of governmental regulations of private economic matters, private property, privately-owned businesses, private trade and the private movement and living circumstances of private people. As I wrote in this article, when government bureaucrats intrude into the associations and contracts, including employment contracts, between private businesses and workers, including immigrant workers, such fascist regulatory controls are immoral as they violate the basic principles of private property and the sanctity of private contracts, not to mention the ideas of freedom of association and freedom of movement. The association between an employer and a worker, or prospective worker or job applicant, is a private association and not the business of 3rd parties. If you want to interfere with the employment of a Mexican worker who needs a job and a Texas or Illinois employer who believes that such a worker is the most qualified applicant who will best serve the consumers, you really can’t say that you are a “capitalist,” but you can say that you are both a socialist and a fascist.

And this argument endorsing socialist government borders and controls is bogus. “Close the borders,” etc., etc. So I’m listening to the self-proclaimed nationalist Jeff Kuhner talking about how we as a nation are a “family” in our home that immigrants are “breaking into” like burglars. You see, that is how collectivists think. And nationalism is a form of collectivism. No, we are not a “family,” and immigrants are not “breaking into” someone’s home or business. Most of them, anyway, are voluntarily applying for jobs and being voluntarily hired by employers whose main concern is serving their customers, the consumers of America, NOT serving the whims of government bureaucrats or serving the interests of anti-foreigner collectivists.

Now, if you want to address the welfare, a whole different matter from immigration, then go for it. The welfare state should not exist in a free society of free markets and private property. So remove the welfare state and the immoral theft and coercion upon which it is based, and you will relieve your supposedly beloved America of many huge burdens. But if foreigners want to come to America, let them come here without harassment. Stop claiming ownership over their lives and interfering with their right to make a better life for themselves. Of course they should be given “amnesty,” because they are not criminals. The real criminals are the bureaucrats and their enforcers who invade private businesses and arrest workers and employers who are merely engaged in the freedom of trade in labor and commerce.

Instead of conservatives being worried about Republican acceptance of immigration “amnesty” as a means of killing off conservatism, they should be more worried about how the immoral policies of welfare statism and intrusive and destructive governmental regulations are not only wrecking the economy but reinforcing the moral and social decay of America.

Bob Simon and David Carr Have Expired, They Have Ceased To Be

60 minutes reporter Bob Simon died a few days ago in a car crash, at age 73. Simon’s most recent report was on the film Selma, and he had been working on a story for 60 Minutes on the search for a cure for Ebola. Karen De Coster wrote this article in 2013 on Bob Simon’s 60 Minutes report on Detroit. While Simon seemed to present as a greedy miser this one major entrepreneur attempting to help take Detroit out of its economic downturn through investment and providing employment opportunities, Simon apparently does not grasp that it is Detroit’s city government that is bankrupt, not the businesses, as Karen De Coster points out. In her essay she compares that story with an earlier story on Detroit by the late Mike Wallace who did attempt to expose the government misers and their cronies in Detroit that Bob Simon was not capable of doing, apparently. She also mentioned the late Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes and other earlier news shows. And also there were the late Peter Jennings, and the late David Brinkley, all from an earlier generation who at least attempted to put their biases aside to get the whole story behind an issue. (I’m not so sure about the late Walter Cronkite and the . . . still early? . . . Baba Wawa.)

And New York Times media columnist David Carr died this week, at age 58, after collapsing in the Times’ newsroom. In George Reisman’s 2012 article, Statist Luddites Attack Amazon, he points out an article by David Carr in the Times on a DOJ antitrust lawsuit against 5 book publishers accused of being in cahoots on “price-fixing,” but the DOJ neglecting to go after the big one, Amazon.com. Prof. Reisman notes: “Instead of condemning this police action against production and trade, Mr. Carr bemoans the fact that the strong arm of the law didn’t go far enough to grip the ‘monopolistic monolith’ Amazon, which ‘has used its market power to bully and dictate.’ Mr. Carr considers it bullying and dictating when a private company (Amazon) sets its terms, and other players (the publishers) are free to do business with it or not. But it’s not bullying and dictating when the compulsory power of the state intervenes to set economic terms and punish businesses arbitrarily?”

Interestingly, just before he died David Carr had moderated a Times Internet discussion with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden along with journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. (Hmm, I hope there wasn’t some sort of a Michael Hastings or a Breitbart going on there with Carr. Were TPTB displeased with that sort of open discussion on the crimes of the State? But I digress.)

So there we have two statists of the mainstream media who have died this week. And all this while something else has died: Brian Williams’s career. Obviously he will be given the old heave-ho, because if he has no credibility now as a newsman, how could he possibly confront a candidate on that candidate’s hypocrisy on some issue? How could someone like Brian Williams report on the liars of DC if he is one himself?

Praxeology Is Cool

Praxeology is closely associated with Austrian school economics, and refers to human action generally being conscious and with some purpose. Murray Rothbard wrote about praxeology, the methodology of Austrian economics. It also involves logic, deduction, and the real world.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe recently gave this lecture on praxeology at the Mises Institute Deutschland. If you speak German, you will find this interesting. If you don’t speak German, I have found a similar lecture by Hoppe at the Mises Institute from a few years ago, in English, below the one in German.

More Recent Commentaries

Wendy McElroy has this article on yet another one of those more distressing totalitarian policies or future policies that the U.S. government wants to shove down the throats of innocent people. The TSA will be making Real ID requirements mandatory by year 2016 for those who intend to fly within the U.S. borders. That means that new state drivers licenses will be required to have personal identifiers, as those IDs are required now to be able to fly. But some states such as Montana are resisting. So the fascist feds want to monitor the people’s movements like intrusive wannabe Soviet-like criminals. Nothing new here.

Meanwhile, as Michael Snyder reports, federal agencies such as the FEC now want to regulate alternative Internet news sites (Drudge, Infowars, etc.). Snyder brings up Saudi Arabia’s imprisoning and giving 1,000 lashes to a blogger for “insulting Islam.” But as I noted here, it’s really punishment for insulting the Regime, the Saudi Royal Pains-in-the-Butt. Will it come to this here in the U.S., with the Rulers not wanting Drudge or Infowars to discuss the latest crimes by Lois Lerner or Eric Holder? Will we be given 1,000 lashes for “insulting John McCain,” another royal pain-in-the-butt?

Speaking of the anti-free speech totalitarians, Ukraine is cracking down on critics of their regime, too, according to Justin Raimondo.

Donald Miller MD writes about the risks of getting Measles vs. the risks of the MMR vaccine.

And Jacob Hornberger asks, Why protect the rich from competition?

Private Contracts and Voluntary Association for a Moral and Civilized Society

Well, the same-sex marriage issue is in the news once again, this time with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore causing the controversy. I don’t know why conservatives are so against the ideas of freedom of contract, private property rights and voluntary association, as those are the principles which are most important here.

Many of the anti-same-sex marriage people believe that society should not prosecute or harass a private business owner (such as a baker or photographer) who doesn’t want to spend extra time and labor producing goods or services for customers whose lifestyle goes against that businessperson’s personal beliefs. Yet, at the same time these so-called “free-market capitalist” conservatives want to use the armed force of law to prevent certain people from forming their own private contracts, based on the opponents’ own social views.

As I have mentioned before, if you really want to empower the government and its police enforcers to restrict the lives of others based on your own social views, then you are thus empowering future bureaucrats to impose certain social views on others, by law. And that is what we have now, with the aforementioned “civil rights” laws in which same-sex couples can use the courts and their enforcers to forcibly order private photographers or other businesspeople to involuntarily do extra time and labor to serve the needs of those whose lifestyles those businesspeople oppose, or be forced to pay a huge fine.

Now, the important principles of a free society and free-market capitalism are private property rights, voluntary association and the sanctity of the private contract. If individuals want to establish a contract in their personal or economic lives, such a contract is private and its terms are the business of only those who are the parties to that contract, as long as there is no force, fraud or theft involved. When uninvolved third parties intrude themselves into those private contracts, including government legislators and enforcers, those outsiders are intruders. The progressives have been using the armed force of law for a century to intrude into private contracts via many New Deal policies, the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank law, and all points between. But conservatives have been just as bad with their drug laws, their “anti-terrorism” intrusions and their social fascism.

Some conservatives seem to be saying that they think the government should have laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act to “protect the institution of marriage.” But that is not why we have government. Supposedly, we have the government to protect people from the aggressions, theft and fraud of others. If you want to “protect” certain social norms or ways of life which are practiced privately by even a majority of the people, that is why we have religious institutions such as churches, and community groups, and even talk radio personalities to act as a bully pulpit, etc. But not the armed force of government. We do not empower government to involve itself in private contracts. In fact, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize or empower the federal government to enforce various social ways of life even if practiced by a majority of the people.

And regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, some people bring up “states’ rights,” but states don’t have “rights,” only individuals do. “So, where in the Constitution is there a constitutional right to same-sex marriage?” one might ask. Well, the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

But I do want to ask, Where in the constitution is there a right to opposite-sex marriage? Or a legally-enforceable monopoly on marriage by heterosexuals?

Like it or not, all individuals own their own lives, and, according to the Declaration of Independence, the people have “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In the name of “protecting the institution of marriage,” the conservatives and other anti-same-sex marriage fascists want to interfere with other people’s peaceful and voluntary “pursuit of happiness.” And all at the expense of private contracts and voluntary association, of course.

Now, if only I could get the pro-same-sex marriage crowd to understand private property rights, voluntary association and the sanctity of private contracts . . .(I know, it’s an uphill battle, but I’ll keep trying.)

Rand Paul: “Parents Own the Children”

In a recent interview, Sen. Rand Paul claimed that parents “own” their kids. I am not sure that he really meant to use the word “own,” or if he really meant to say that the parents, not the State, have the ultimate authority over the children. However, it is possible that he really believes that parents “own” their kids.

Now, Rand Paul is right when he says that the State doesn’t own the children. But do parents really own their kids?

Several years ago I wrote about when self-ownership begins. I believe that self-ownership begins when the individual’s life begins. Sure, the pre-born and infants and toddlers need caretakers, but they are not the property of their parents or caretakers. There are disabled adults who need 24-hour care, but does that mean they are owned by their caretakers? Do they lose their self-ownership because of being dependent on others for their survival? Of course not.

And I wrote,

What is the viability of a born baby? If baby is left alone for a particular amount of time, one cannot survive for very long, because at that early stage of development one is dependent on one’s caretakers for feeding. The same can be said of a 2-year-old, maybe even older children, although the older the child, the more able one is to go out and seek food, unless one is locked inside and can’t get out. Is there a difference between the viability of a born individual and an unborn individual (at whatever stage of development)?

What about “sentience” and “consciousness?” How do we know whether or not a two-month-old “fetus” or a 2-day-old “fetus” can have any physical sensation or conscious awareness? If it is important whether or not that individual has sentience or consciousness in considering whether that individual has any right to life and liberty, and self-ownership, then, what about a born human being or a grown adult who has a neurological disorder and has no “sentience” or who is in a “persistent vegetative state” and has no consciousness, but is still “alive” (or can be kept alive via artificial means)?

There are some people who believe that because the children’s biological parents used their own physical apparatus to create the new human life, that therefore the parents are the owners of the products of their own labor and from using their own material. However, we are talking about a separate individual human being, not an item of property or an invention.

Murray Rothbard addressed the issues of children’s rights and self-ownership in his Ethics of Liberty. Toward the beginning of Chapter 14, he notes,

The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner. But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?

He states that a newborn is “in no natural sense an existing self-owner.” Hmm, I disagree with that. Some of his arguments later on include his support of the woman’s right to abort a pregnancy i.e. kill the developing unborn baby.

Some people believe that the fetus becomes a human life at some point between conception and birth. Others are more extreme and believe that one is not a human being until some point during childhood. However, my own view is that the human being individual’s life begins at conception, and develops further until the death of that individual.

All human beings are at different stages of development, from conception to death. Just because an individual is at a less advanced stage of development does not mean that one is any less of a human being, or has less value than others.

But I don’t think that Murray Rothbard would agree with me on that. In the above quote, Rothbard asked, “when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership?”

So he refers to a “natural” right to liberty and self-ownership,” but at the same time asking when the individual “acquires” such a “natural” right? Hmm, I thought that if you have a natural right that it is not “acquired” but inherent, no? So in my view Rothbard is not quite consistent there, and I believe that the individual’s life beginning at conception includes one’s self-ownership. As noted above, the humanness of such individuals should not be dependent on whether they are able to make conscious decisions in life, such as whether to get a vaccine or not, or what foods to eat or be fed, etc.

However, in that same Chapter of Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard does make some good points which can be used to defend the parents’ rights to not vaccinate the child depending on the parents’ own judgments. In other words, the State or the community should not have the power to force the parents to vaccinate the child. But likewise, in using Rothbard’s defense of the child’s right to flee an abusive home, for example, in favor of a better home which is welcoming of the child, if the child disagrees with the parents’ judgment and wants to get a vaccine, it is of course the child’s right to attempt to do just that. Parents do not own their children.

Now, regarding the vaccine issue, I just wish the pro-mandatory vaccination crowd weren’t so closed-minded and ignorant, and intolerant of other points of view. And no, the “science” is not settled fact on vaccines, as there really have been plenty of illnesses and deaths that were and are caused by vaccines, such as the Gardasil vaccine, as Dr. Ron Paul pointed out recently.

And as we have read from other medical experts such as what Dr. Lee Hieb, author of Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of ObamaCare, detailed in this very well-researched report on vaccines, people need to be informed and protect themselves from the pharmaceutical-government complex as well as take care of themselves nutritionally to reinforce their own natural immune systems.

So there are very good reasons why vaccinations should be voluntary, certainly not mandatory. And these issues strongly reinforce the moral and ethical basis for the individual’s own self-ownership against any claims by the State or community of ownership of the lives of others, children or adults.