Skip to content

Month: August 2016

Milwaukee Experiences More Black Racist Violence Against Whites

There is more rioting being perpetrated by people associated with “Black Lives Matter,” this time in Milwaukee. The ignorant thugs respond with violence reflexively to news that there was a police shooting and killing of a black suspect, regardless of the circumstances of the situation. One fact of relevance is that the officer who did the shooting was himself black. So, it’s not a “white cop shooting a black victim” situation.

Further, during the rioting some of the thugs were intentionally targeting and beating up white people, because they were white.  The marauders allegedly were pulling white people out of their cars to beat them. Wisconsin was the same state a few years back, in 2011, in which a mob of black teens intentionally targeted white people to beat up.

But so far I am not hearing this latest black violence against whites being reported by mainstream media outlets.

Why are people in the media so afraid to report on black thugs who are beating up on innocent white people just because they’re white? I guess it’s like Ed Asner and other celebrities on the Left who are afraid to criticize Obama for fear of being called “racist.” I think that’s very childish. In these instances, the racists are the black people who are targeting whites with violence.

I understand why black people would get upset when yet another police shooting might involve a white officer against a black victim. But why don’t they get equally upset at the several thousands of shootings going on, especially in Chicago, by black people against other black people? Oh, the police shootings are symbolic. It’s the images that matter. And I get that point. But Americans, whether they are black, white or any race or ethnicity, should not live in fear of the police.

One problem is that the police are burdened with having to enforce unjust laws, such as those regarding drug prohibition, and the many thousands of bureaucratic laws that should also not exist. But it’s mainly this drug war that’s causing the government police to act like Nazis and thugs against innocent people.

And we know that minimum wage and other regulations cause unemployment and restrict the young people’s opportunities, either as beginning workers or entrepreneurs.

End the drug war and its simultaneous police state, and repeal minimum wage and other regulations and then there will exist many more honest opportunities for the young people.

But the activists and bureaucrats who have imposed all these economic and social controls, thus causing more and more problems as a result, are the same ones who manipulate the tensions (that they are creating) between government police and the young and minority people. The race-baiters include Jesse Jackson and Al Shrapnel and all their younger cohorts, as well as Barack Obama. Nearly eight years with “America’s First Black President” and race relations are worse, not better.

Donald Trump Combines Left-Liberal Progressivism With Nationalist Authoritarianism. Not Good.

The Boston Globe editorial board (or is it bored?) has described Donald Trump as a “thinly disguised white nationalist,” i.e. racist. Others have called Trump a racist. Now, I don’t believe he is a racist, although he is a collectivist. Certainly not an individualist.

Trump’s father, Fred Trump was certainly a racist who had tried to evict or prevent from renting in his buildings black people and other minorities, and I think that Donald Trump grew up seeing that and feeling that such attitudes are morally wrong which is how he became a left-liberal progressive who espouses “New York values,” i.e. being socially liberal. He’s very “liberal” on gay rights, and doesn’t have a problem with “transgender” biological males going into the ladies room (even if the ladies in there obviously do have a problem with it).

Even his economic views are on the left, with his unwillingness to cut entitlements including not dealing at all with Social Security, his wanting to expand Medicaid for everyone in a “single payer” scheme, and so on.

But Trump is a nationalist who wants to use the powers of government to restrict the rights of American consumers and producers to trade with foreigners, and who wants a collectivized government-imposed “deal” that supposedly benefits Americans, American companies, and so on, even though such Trump-concocted deals will not do that. He is also very authoritarian and doesn’t like to be criticized in the media or he’ll take critics to court. So Trump’s campaign is attracting a lot of fellow nationalists, and, unfortunately, attracting some people who seem to be more concerned with maintaining a white majority in America than they are in reducing government’s power and control over the people.

And Trump is attracting fellow authoritarians who don’t like to hear people criticizing the government and its bureaucrats. There are a lot of people who get emotional with the American flag, the National Anthem, and are supporters of the U.S. government’s militarism and “American Exceptionalism.” And many of these people don’t like it when dissenters or protesters or writers criticize the idea of American Exceptionalism or the national security state apparatus, such as the NSA, the CIA, the military, and so on. They say that Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are traitors for exposing wrongdoing from those agencies. And some authoritarians and nationalists, including the ignoramus Newt Gingrich, think that government’s critics are “traitors” who should be prosecuted.

It’s actually the other way around. According to the U.S. Constitution, treason is when the people’s government, or others, turn the State’s armed apparatus against the people, or support the enemies of the people. The Constitution in Article III, Section 3, states that Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. It is referring to the “States” as a plural form, and referring to the prospective disloyalty of the federal government against the people of the states. Sadly, there are authoritarian people who believe that “treason” is mainly disloyalty by the people toward the federal government.

So my own interpretation of that includes when the agents of the government use any part of the government’s powers against innocent people. Some recent examples include the NSA’s spying on innocent Americans who are not suspects, the IRS and Lois Lerner targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny and harassment, and Obama’s assassination program of people not even charged with crimes.

So regarding the people who want to see arrested and jailed those who openly criticize the U.S. government and its military’s killing sprees overseas or the NSA and other parts of the authoritarian apparatus in Washington, the authoritarians aren’t exactly friends of the First Amendment, regardless of their alleged stand against political correctness, such as what we hear on conservative talk radio. And these are the kinds of people who are also attracted to Donald Trump’s nationalistic rhetoric. Whether Trump or Hillary is elected in November, both will bring on a resurgence in speech intolerance, dissent intolerance and censorship, with Hillary and her leftist political correctness censorship and Donald and the nationalists and their authoritarian intolerance and censorship. Jonathan Turley has been writing about the loss of free speech in the U.K. and other European countries as well as the absence of free speech in the Middle East and Asia. He’ll be writing a lot more about the U.S. in coming years, no doubt.

But the thing is with Trump, even though he is a leftist on the “socially liberal” matters, he just doesn’t get what freedom is supposed to be about in America. Freedom is when the consumers have the freedom to buy whatever they want, the best quality goods and at the lowest possible price, in America or anywhere in the world. Freedom is when producers can build their plants wherever they want as long as they don’t trespass on private property. Freedom is when workers and employers establish voluntary contracts among themselves, regardless of where they are from, and third parties don’t intrude. Trump and fellow nationalists do not like that kind of freedom. They like control. Government controls over the people to restrict such freedom. You’d think that people who are socially liberal progressives like Donald Trump would favor that kind of freedom. But no.

And speaking of private property rights, Donald Trump is also for private property rights when it comes to protecting his property, but not the rights of others. In fact, like the Left, Trump is very covetous of other people’s property and will try to take it from them by force if necessary. Trump has several times dragged innocent property owners through the government courts using “eminent domain.” Eminent domain is nothing but government theft of private property. I really don’t understand what kind of individual would do that to innocent people. An extremely narcissistic and covetous person who really believes that his proposed parking lot is worth using the armed apparatus of government to take property away from its rightful owners. If some lady doesn’t want to sell you her home, and no price is good enough for her, then you leave her alone. At least that’s the moral way to deal with things, in my view. So there’s another reason to be uncomfortable with Donald Trump, when it comes to using the armed apparatus of government against other people.

ISIS and Islamic Terrorism Were Created by Government Interventionism

This week Donald Trump asserted that Obama and Hillary “founded” ISIS, and said that he really meant that their policies created ISIS, or caused the beginnings of ISIS. But really, ISIS began and grew as a result of the disastrous wars that George W. Bush started in Iraq and Afghanistan, his drones murdering innocents there and elsewhere including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. (and as continued by Obama), which provokes and motivates those foreigners to retaliate, or to form new groups outside of al-Qaeda to retaliate against the U.S. and the West. The new group ISIS also exploited the chaos Bush’s wars created in Iraq, and has been trying to take over Iraq and Syria.

This group ISIS and the subsequent terrorist attacks in the U.S., France, Belgium and elsewhere by ISIS’s sympathizers are all results of government interventionism. This is why interventionism is not only immoral but it’s invasive and criminal, in my view, and it causes blowback. We can even go back to before 9/11/2001, as those terrorist attacks were in part results of the U.S. government and UN’s and NATO’s interventionism, their wars and sanctions especially against Iraq throughout the 1990s. President George H.W. Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 and sanctions were extremely unnecessary and in fact criminal aggressions against another country that was of no threat to the U.S.

I believe that Bush Sr. and his fellow interventionists and globalists were planning such a war long before that, as during the Reagan Administration they had already been setting up those Middle Eastern U.S. military bases which should never have been placed there. Given what dishonest slithering snakes these government hacks, police statists, militarists, corporatists and bureaucrats are, I believe that they knew what they were doing during the 1980s and for those illicit purposes. Because the Bush people — and Bush being a CIA guy was very astute at sensing this — could see that the Soviet Union was very close to collapsing on its own weight, and they were preparing to create new “enemies” with which scare the American people, in order to justify the continuation of the military-security-industrial complex and the national security state, in my view. Reagan should never had chosen Bush as his VP.

We can even go back to before the 1980s, at least to 1953 and the CIA’s coup in Iran that replaced the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh with the “Shah,” Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose repressive SAVAK police state tortured and terrorized the Iranian people, backed by the U.S. from the 1950s up to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. I doubt that there would have been hostage takings of Americans in Iran in 1979-1981 had the U.S. government not propped up the SAVAK regime of the Shah for three decades. Perhaps the CIA and U.S. government bureaucrats knew what they were doing during those decades?

In Education, Conservatives Should Consider the Free Market

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina school district has Franklin Graham in an hysterical frenzy over the district’s “brainwashing” children with the homosexual-transgender-etc. agenda. This is just one situation of many, many situations now in which educrats are forcing some perverted, usually sexual-related agenda onto little kids, as I mentioned here. (Planned Parenthood is just as bad, as I wrote here.) The solution to all these issues with the government’s usurpation and control over kids’ education is to get the government out of the education business, as Laurence Vance concluded in this article. Jacob Hornberger has also suggested that.

Most liberals or progressives wouldn’t consider the idea of privatizing the entire educational apparatus. Most people on the Left like the idea of government control over matters, and the more centralized the better. Unlike conservatives, the progressives don’t have a problem with the government schools as indoctrination centers, for imposing the aforementioned sexual perversity agenda, imposing the fanatical climate change ideology, reinforcing social intolerance and instilling the paranoid fear that just about everything is “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobic” and that this or that word or phrase “triggers” some kind of trauma.

But the conservatives are not for localizing or privatizing either. Sure, they talk a good game about undoing the federal intrusions into education, but in the end they like the idea of federal government control. It’s just a matter of who or which party is in control of the apparatus. The conservatives like the ideas of charter schools and vouchers, because privatization is not particularly involved there. Those schemes allow government to retain its control over the kids’ education.

And the conservatives might say they want “local control” over education, but still local government control. The only difference between them and the progressives is what particular social agenda they want instilled into the kids in the schools, which depends on who is in control of the government school apparatus.

Up to the mid-19th Century, children’s education was mostly run locally and privately and not by government. But the activists, the educationists (as Murray Rothbard put it) and the progressives, were mainly authoritarians and collectivists who did not like the ideas of individualism and liberty, so they ganged together and got their government-usurped control over the education of children. By the 20th Century through right now we have had government schools whose main goal is to instill an obedience to authority, particularly obedience to the State. And this is one big reason why conservatives are ultimately fine with government schools and generally oppose the privatization of education, right along with the progressives. (John Taylor Gatto provides the Underground History of American Public Education in this article.)

Government-controlled schooling has succeeded in indoctrinating the masses to accept without question what the government does and what its bureaucrats tell them. For instance, after the “pro-life” conservatives give their speeches opposing abortion, because we have to “protect innocent human life,” they then go on to rationalize the U.S. military’s atomic bombing of innocent human lives including children, slaughtering tens of thousands of them. As part of their cognitive dissonance, they say that mass-murdering innocent children and civilian adults who were of no threat to anyone was justified to, theoretically, spare the lives of U.S. soldiers in some hypothetically possible future ground conflict. I doubt that the ones who rationalized such targeting and murdering of innocent human lives had ever given it much thought. It’s probably more that they were taught from their earliest days that that was the right thing to do, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, and so on.

Another reason that many people, conservatives and progressives alike (but mostly conservatives), rationalize that atomic bombing and mass murder of innocents is that, “well those people including the children were part of the enemy, they were on the other side.” So here is another achievement of the government-controlled schools in the past century, to instill this kind of collectivist ideology, in which “we” are all on “our” side, and “they” are on the other side. The collectivists dismiss the fact that each one of us is an individual, in which some of us might not agree with the government’s actions, and in which each one of the Japanese people is an individual. Especially a child. So the collectivists including the “pro-life” conservatives who are indoctrinated with their collectivist ideology will rationalize that it’s okay to slaughter a child or tens of thousands of them if those innocent kids are on “the other side.”

This is why — thanks to their government-controlled schooling — many people reacted so defensively after 9/11 to those who brought up what the U.S. government had been doing in the Middle East prior to 9/11. How dare anyone question U.S. government foreign policy or suggest that it was largely responsible for provoking foreigners. The U.S. government worshipers (that is, most people), reacted emotionally to any references to U.S. government bombing and sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s, as “blaming America” for hijackers crashing planes into buildings. You see, the government’s usurpation of these people’s earlier education has instilled into them a blind obedience to government authority that is not to be questioned. Too scary to question.

So part of the conservatives’ love of government-usurpation of education includes this State worship and deference and obedience to government authority, and their beloved Pledge of Allegiance to a flag, really a pledge of allegiance and obedience to the State. Conservatives won’t consider dismantling the government’s control over education because all that needs to be done is replacing the progressives’ social agenda of sexual perversion, climate change and political correctness with the conservatives‘ own agenda of “putting God back into the schools,” bringing back Biblical readings and the aforementioned Pledge of Allegiance.

Both the progressives and the conservatives, however, agree that we should continue to label kids with “Oppositional Defiant Disorder,” “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” and so on, and give the kids prescription drugs to give them more problems and further destroy their childhoods and their future. That seems to be a bipartisan effort these days.

So there’s no reason not to have a laissez-faire capitalist free market in education just as there should be in all matters of daily life. I think that in such a society we would have a resurgence in respect for the rights and liberty of the individual, and the aforementioned craziness would be weeded out by the market.

In considering such alternatives to the status quo, Richard Ebeling specifies that a market-based system would work better than the socialized educational bureaucracy we have now (that’s dumbing down the kids and destroying their future).

Some GOP Primary Challengers for the Anti-Liberty U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte

New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte is one of the U.S. Senators that Donald Trump has been reluctant to endorse (along with John McCain and Rep. Paul Ryan). But I think he finally endorsed them. Kelly Ayotte is not the brightest bulb in the Senate, but she’s also wrong on just about every issue. Ayotte is an extremely anti-liberty politician. Ayotte is a militarist who does not believe in due process, supports the evil Patriot Act, believes that people placed on a no-fly list (regardless of the many false positives) should be denied their right to have a firearm, and supports illegal NSA spying on innocents and fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and has many other bad positions.

On the one hand, because I really believe that Hillary Clinton will win in November, I think it’s important that she face a Republican Congress to oppose her entire agenda. However, Donald Trump’s name at the top of the Rs will cause big losses and give Hillary a rubber-stamp Democrat Congress. So, I would prefer that Kelly Ayotte beat Democrat Maggie Hassan in November.

On the other hand, because I can’t stand Ayotte it would be nice to see her “primaried” and yanked out of the U.S. Senate (along with McCain and other anti-liberty schmucks).

But then, among Ayotte’s Republican primary opponents one pro-liberty candidate is someone a bit too “extreme” in his, well, not his views but the way he expresses them. That’s Tom Alciere who is not running as a Libertarian Party candidate but as a Republican. In fact, he is a self-described “Orthodox Libertarian Extremist.”

For instance, he seems to be very anti-police. But with some of the things he says or writes, he just is not going to attract voters away from Ayotte in the primary with that kind of stuff. Alciere says that while people have a right to presumption of innocence, cops should be “presumed guilty until proven innocent.” Now, I also have some issues with government police, but I believe that all people are to be presumed innocent, regardless of their occupation or any other factors, including police officers. Alciere writes that as a U.S. Senator, he “will not confirm an attorney general unless the nominee hates cops with a passion.” Do you think you’re going to take votes away from Kelly Ayotte with that kind of stuff?

In fact, Alciere’s online comments such as, “Nobody will ever be safe until the last cop is dead,” caused such a stir that he was pressured to resign from the New Hampshire state House of Representatives within weeks of taking office in 2001. According to the New York Times, Alciere wrote, “There is nothing wrong with slaughtering a cop. Just throw the carcass into the Dumpster with the rest of the garbage. Cops are nothing but vicious brutal thugs anyway.”

Now, obviously Alciere, who has described himself as a libertarian, doesn’t understand libertarianism’s message of individualism. In contrast, collectivism is when people view others by group identity, and treat them accordingly. Alciere’s assertion that “cops are nothing but vicious brutal thugs” is just inaccurate, because there are many cops who are not vicious or brutal. Each one of us is an individual and has a right to be viewed upon and judged by others as such an individual. To me, that kind of individualist philosophy goes hand in hand with libertarian philosophy.

By the way, Alciere also runs SortedByName.com, a website with the names and Social Security numbers of dead people, and CancelTheseFunerals.com, so he’s definitely my kinda guy.

And then there’s professional roofing contractor Gerard Beloin. Now, except for his views on immigration and maybe some other things, I like what he has to say, sort of. However, apparently Beloin has had some issues in the New Hampshire court system, as a whistleblower uncovering corruption. In his About page he describes some of that. He also has a YouTube channel that includes a posting of a court-ordered psychological evaluation of him involving some issue. There’s also a video of him and some other guy going over the details of Kelly Ayotte’s corruption  as a “dirty lawyer and dirty pol” in New Hampshire. I only looked at parts of that video. But it seems that there has been more than one time in which Beloin has had conflicts with New Hampshire government officials and politicians, including “suspicious deaths” in certain court cases. Nothing new there.

Sadly, Beloin is not the only one who has been the victim of New Hampshire’s government court system. While New Hampshire is supposedly a libertarianish “Free State,” its government-run “child protective services” and family court system have been an Orwellian nightmare for many people.

So despite their flaws, either of those two, Tom Alciere or Gerard Beloin, would be better than the loathsome Kelly Ayotte, in my view. But I suspect that she will win re-nomination and probably lose to Democrat Maggie Hassan in November.

Is there a Libertarian Party candidate? (Does it matter?) Well, there’s Brian Chabot, who describes himself as a “left-leaning libertarian.” His gun rights/gun control views are not libertarian, they are central-planning nonsense, in my view.

Because the Libertarian Party now is so anti-liberty and un-libertarian, it might be better for true liberty-minded state-wide candidates to challenge Establishment Republicans and Democrats in primaries to get elected to those offices.

Discouraging: How “Libertarians” Are Confusing the Principles of Libertarianism

This is becoming very distressing and these “Libertarian” Party people are making the prospects for liberty seem hopeless now. The goofy “Libertarian” Party ignoramuses Gary Johnson and Bill Weld had their 2nd CNN Town Hall event this week. Supposedly, it was the highest-viewed cable TV show that night. However, the real libertarian message still isn’t being communicated by these statists.

Even their “socially-liberal” message is un-libertarian, in that they want government empowered not only to force people into associations and contracts against their will, but to force people to do extra labor to serve others against their will (e.g. punishing a Christian baker who didn’t want to bake a cake for a lesbian couple).

And even further disappointing is Brian Doherty’s attempt to explain how Johnson and Weld continued to confuse real libertarian views. Doherty himself doesn’t elaborate at all on why something stated by Johnson or Weld was un-libertarian. For that you have to read Laurence Vance and Jacob Hornberger’s articles. In fact, one of Laurence’s most recent articles was about discrimination. He made some very good points toward the end:

What opponents of discrimination; that is, supporters of laws against freedom of choice, have done is create two standards: one for buyers, customers, and consumers and one for sellers, businesses, and producers.

But if it is not illegal for buyers, customers, and consumers to discriminate (for any reason and on any basis) against sellers, businesses, and producers, then neither should it be illegal for sellers, businesses, and producers to discriminate (for any reason and on any basis) against buyers, customers, and consumers.

And he concludes the article with a point that I have made before, that to punish someone for one’s reasons for choosing not to work with or for others is to create thought crimes. Whatever your reason is to not want to associate with me, to not want to serve me in your store, or whatever, is your own business. That’s where the freedom is.

But these statist, pro-aggression people really believe that people have a right to force others to associate with them, that people have a right to force others to hire them, that people have a right to force others to do work for them, and that people have a right to force others to serve them, involuntarily.

But the basis for a truly free society is that all associations, contracts, relationships be voluntary. No force or coercion. When there’s force or coercion, then the society becomes uncivilized. And that is what our society is now.

So this year’s “Libertarian” Party farce makes me less hopeful that the younger people will ever understand the actual principles of liberty. I think the Libertarians for Trump people are also contributing to that confusion in their promoting of the statist central-planning-obsessed Donald Trump, and so they are frustrating to me these days, as well.

I had previously critiqued Johnson and Weld’s first CNN Town Hall with Anderson Pooper-Scooper Anderson Cooper. And both Johnson and Weld just recently appeared with Chris Matthews on “Harball.” Well, at least they didn’t say anything too embarrassingly grave-digging of libertarianism on that show.

On foreign policy Johnson speaks of “regime change” and its “unintended consequences,” but he has too many times suggested a rearranging of deck chairs approach, closing some U.S. military bases, but leaving some, such as in Afghanistan. Johnson and Weld refuse to acknowledge that the real, root causes of the rise in Islamic extremism and terrorism is a reaction to the U.S. government’s invasions, occupations, bombings and destruction of those Middle Eastern and Asian countries from which the terrorism seems to emanate.

All this has been going on since long before 9/11/2001. Our government’s invasions and bombings for many decades have been an example of poking hornets’ nests, which is especially dangerous and risky when you are dealing with very primitive societies and cultures over there. The constant bombings, invasions, occupations, contribute a great deal to further radicalizing those people.

Unfortunately, very short-sighted moral relativists don’t understand that.

The true libertarian and moral approach to all that is to follow the Golden Rule, and the principle of non-initiation of aggression. If we over here in America would not want foreign governments staring wars against us, bombing our cities, with their foreign soldiers breaking into our homes, murdering our people and killing children here, then we should not allow our government and its military to do the same to those foreigners over there. Sadly, many people believe that everything started with 9/11/2001, with Islamic terrorists deciding to act on their “hatred for our freedom” and attacking the World Trade Center, etc. The short-sighted moral relativists know nothing about the provocations being inflicted by the U.S. government and military overseas prior to 9/11.

And don’t count on the mainstream media to inform people of history. The mainstream media merely repeat what government bureaucrats tell them, with very little challenging, very little investigating. Those who do actual investigating of historical contexts are referred to as “conspiracy theorists” and crazies. Many mainstream media writers and reporters are very lazy now, repeating word for word what their “sources” tell them.

And yes, our government has been the aggressor. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush started the first war of aggression against Iraq. It was a thoroughly immoral and criminal action, which included the intentional bombing and destruction of civilian Iraqi water and sewage treatment centers, which caused the Iraqi people to have to use untreated water, which led to high rates of diseases, infant mortality, and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths by the mid-1990s. The U.S. government and the UN imposed sanctions which prevented the Iraqis from importing materials to rebuild their infrastructure and importing medical supplies as well. Up to a million deaths by the year 2000 in Iraq.

Throughout the 1990s, Ron Paul issued several warnings that such a murderous U.S. government foreign policy of invasions, bombings and sanctions would probably lead to some sort of attack here in the U.S., and he was right.

Just about all the Islamic terrorists who have shot people or set off bombs here had mentioned U.S. foreign policy as part of their motivations, as Glenn Greenwald noted recently. It isn’t just the U.S. government but other Western governments as well, including France, which have been taking an active role in aggressions against Middle Eastern populations. The French military has been bombing the hell out of Syria, and the French people are now the victims of the blowback of their government’s aggressions. (As Jacob Hornberger has mentioned several times, note how there haven’t been terrorist attacks in Switzerland, as their government has not been bombing other countries. Duh.)

So the real libertarian approach to preventing further terrorist attacks in the West is for the U.S. government and other Western governments to cease with their aggressions, stop the bombing, end the occupations. Close down all those U.S. military bases overseas and bring the troops back to the U.S. They don’t belong over there because those are not U.S. territories, and if you believe that the U.S. Constitution has any validity, that important document does not authorize the U.S. government to place its governmental or military bases on foreign lands that are not U.S. territories. The U.S. Constitution also does not authorize the U.S. government to act in any way as a protector for other countries as well.

A lot of people really believe otherwise, that “America should have a presence overseas,” meaning our government should have its apparatus on foreign lands against the wishes of the people who actually live there. Many people have been indoctrinated from their earliest days to believe those things, and I suspect that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are two of those indoctrinated people. Johnson seems to have some sort of sense that “regime change” causes “unintended consequences,” but he doesn’t seem to understand the real moral principle of the Golden Rule, and the assertion that much of what our government has been doing to people overseas has been criminal, barbaric, sadistic, psychopathic, and self-destructive.

And these “libertarians” also don’t get it as far as taxation is concerned. They want either a flat tax or a “fair tax” or a national consumption tax, or whatever. Because taxation is involuntary and coerced under threat of being kidnapped by goons and thrown in a cage, therefore the entire system of taxation is a giant criminal racket. It is not only robbery, but fraud given that the government promises to provide this or that (whether you voluntarily agreed to such a contract or not) which many times it does not provide. And many times the government is spending the money it steals from you on programs and policies you vehemently oppose. It is a racket.

America was founded on the moral principle of freedom, in which everyone has the freedom to make use of one’s own labor and capital in whatever way one wants. The freedom to spend one’s wealth and earnings on whatever one wants, save or invest it, give it to charity, start a business, etc. In the early days of America this is how people lived. And the government did not steal from the people, or require reporting on yourself and reporting your private financial information. After this period of the most freedom in human history which raised the standard of living of most people in the society more than any other time in history, the shysters, the predators, the power-grabbers who had become quite familiar with the governmental apparatus that the misguided Founders set up, started to make use of such an apparatus and not for the good. They set up the Federal Reserve System and the Income Tax in 1913, President Wilson needlessly took the U.S. to war overseas to extend and worsen World War I which paved the way to Hitler and World War II, and then Presidents FDR and LBJ imposed the New Deal and the Great Society, respectively.

What we have now is a system and a society of collectivism, of mass plunder and criminality, in which everything is everybody’s and covetousness is the way of life now, as well as mass murder with the foreign wars started by the thugs in Washington. The real libertarian answer to all that is to restore the “rule of law,” actually consider theft to be a criminal act whether committed by civilians or government bureaucrats and their enforcers.

The true libertarian answer to society’s problems, which are created almost entirely by governmental intrusions, is to dismantle the entire corrupt, murderous national security state apparatus, as well as each and every illegitimate government bureaucracy that is being funded involuntarily by the workers and producers of society.

The real libertarian solution is to require that all contracts, transactions, associations and relationships be voluntary. No coercion.

Perhaps it would help if Gary Johnson and Bill Weld could read these:

The Ethics of Liberty, Free Market, For a New Liberty, and The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard

The Myth of National Defense, ed. by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Soak the Poor by Frank Chodorov.

Taxation is Robbery by Frank Chodorov

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

The Criminality of the State by Albert Jay Nock

 

New Book Featuring the Writing of Murray Rothbard

Justin Raimondo has edited a new book with the writings of Murray Rothbard, titled, Never a Dull Moment: A Libertarian Look at the Sixties, meaning the 1960s (not when Murray was in his 60s).

Here is an excerpt from the Introduction, as shown on the Mises Institute website.

These short columns — usually no more than two typewritten pages each — appeared in the Freedom Newspapers, a chain owned by R.C. Hoiles, who was a devotee of Lefevre’s and a committed libertarian. Starting in January of 1967, Rothbard churned out fifty-eight columns, the last one written in the summer of 1968, addressing the campus revolt; the massive antiwar demonstrations; the Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab powers; the Newark riots; the Vietnam war; the persecution of H. Rap Brown, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the abdication of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the rise of Richard Nixon — in those two crucial years there was, as they say, never a dull moment.

We might call this Rothbard’s “left” period: he sided with the student protestors, the African-Americans fighting cops who had invaded their neighborhoods; he stood with the Vietnamese people against the American soldiers who had invaded their neighborhood; he  stood with the Palestinians against their Israeli conquerors, he valorized the “heroic” Malcolm X and denounced Martin Luther King for calling for federal troops to put down black “rioters” — but he never pandered to his intended audience. Unlike some of the “left-libertarians” of today, who have adopted the politically correct check-your-privilege jargon of white liberalism, he always addressed the issues in straightforward libertarian terms.

Did Captain Humayun Khan Die for His Country?

Jacob Hornberger says that the American Muslim soldier who died in Iraq did not die for his country, but for regime change. A lot of people don’t like to hear the truth about why our government has been sacrificing patriotic military soldiers. Many people prefer to believe the lies that continue to get passed down from generation to generation now. If you’re one of those people, but you nevertheless believe in the truth, then you should read this article.