Skip to content

Month: September 2018

Political Power Grabbers

Butler Shaffer has this article now, asking, Who owns the State? A very interesting take on the various groups of power-grabbers, usurpers and the obedient sheeple he calls “zombies.” No kidding, Butler. And I agree with him as far as referring to the Owners so desperate in their wanting their “fiefdom” restored. His article sure has gotten me going today.

While he doesn’t get into the events of this past week, particularly the accusations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh by a professor Christine Blasey Ford while they were in high school, and whose accusations seem questionable, in my view here is an example of the “Owners” desperate for governmental powers. Just look at the depraved and decrepit Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Shady Pines) manipulating and maneuvering in her withholding the Christine Ford accusation letter from July until now as though timing its appearance at the last moment. Shame on Feinstein. She’s this week’s Madame Apparatchik, for sure.

The Democrats are desperate to control the Supreme Court. Some of their priorities include preventing Roe v. Wade from getting overturned. It’s a terrible, unconstitutional, legislating-from-the-bench decision. Don’t worry about it. If it’s overturned most of the states will continue to not interfere with a woman’s right to choose to kill her offspring. On the radio, talk show callers are terrified of “Planned Parenthood being closed down.” No it won’t, because there are plenty of extremely rich liberals who would donate to fund its illicit operations. “Birth control will be inaccessible.” No, just go into your local CVS and get it. It’s not too expensive. If you think it’s too expensive, you need to budget your priorities. Sadly, many people prioritize promiscuous sex, and they don’t want to deal with the consequences responsibly.

The Democrats also are desperate to impose higher tax-thefts on the people, especially a “carbon tax.” The climate change crapola is ALL about further expanding the powers of government and further empowering the private-property-eviscerating police state, and stealing more from the people. It’s ALL about higher taxes, and NOT the environment or the climate.

And the Democrats and progressive activists are desperate to have the power to order private businesspeople like bakers to bake them a cake whether they like it or not. But really, the activists are drooling to impose onto traditionalists, Christians and non-LGBT pervs an acceptance of “alternative” lifestyles that are against their values. Imposing onto others is what progressives are all about. But wait a minute, the conservatives also want to impose their views, such as not allowing an atheist baker to refuse service to a Christian couple.

The conservatives also are desperate for power coming from the Supreme Court.

I have never seen or heard such a bunch of chicken littles running around in circles with their heads cut off like these people. They have been eating up the lies and propaganda of the terrorist police state from Washington ever since 9/11, hook, line and sinker. “Those ragheads are gonna kill us!” and all that. They’re hysterical.

The conservative talk radio ditto-heads only value the 4th and 5th Amendments when their rights are violated, such as the DOJ and FBI spying on the Trump campaign. But not for the riffraff, and certainly not for the Muslims and the Ay-rabs, or the Mexicans and immigrants. Judge Kavanaugh is a rubber-stamper for the surveillance state, the bureaucratic state, the police state. He is a Swamp Creature. So, if someone is accusing him of something when they were in high school, I couldn’t care less. I couldn’t care if the accusation is true or if it’s a false accusation. He’s Swamp Creature, a rubber-stamper for the tyrannical Bureaucracy. Bye-bye. Let’s hope the 9th Justice (sic) is just not replaced at all. And then when Ginsberg decides to call it a day (or croaks), let’s not replace her either. In fact, keep that trend going until there are 9 empty seats. We will all be better off.

Open Borders vs. Government-Controlled Borders

Lew Rockwell has another article on the libertarian view on immigration. But the title of the article, “Open borders are an assault on private property,” has it backwards. It’s government borders and government-controlled borders that are an assault on private property, not just real estate private property but other forms of private property such as private contracts between and among traders, privately-owned businesses and so on.

Rockwell refers extensively to the writings of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard. I responded to Hoppe several times, in this article on immigration and private vs. public property, this one on immigration and Western culture, and on the right to remove “bad neighbors.” And I also responded to Jim Cox on the immigration/culture issue, and to Walter Williams and his extremely collectivist views on immigration.

The way I am perceiving the anti-“open borders” argument from Rockwell and Hoppe is that they assume some sort of communal ownership of an entire territory by, well not the entire population but by only a certain approved sector of the population, the “taxpayers,” and that the “taxpayers” are the owners of “public property,” and involuntarily. Which is irrational, in my view.

The idea that, because people have money and earnings taken from them by the government involuntarily to fund its control over “public property” (such as along the government border), and thus those victims of tax-thefts are the “owners” of such “public property,” involuntarily, is just illegitimate. I addressed all that in the above links.

For example, in this post responding to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I wrote:

Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?

Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?

And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?

When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?

So far, I have not seen any answers to those questions.

From my perspective, it seems to me that Rockwell and the anti-“open borders” libertarians have that assumption of some sort of collective, communal property ownership, of an entire territory, the “nation,” or country. He seems to be asserting that, as long as the federal government in Washington exists, as long as forced-wealth redistribution i.e. welfare exists, as long as anti-discrimination laws exist, we are stuck with all that and should just passively accept the government central planners’ control over who gets in “our” country (and who gets out!), accept the current police state, in other words.

These libertarian theorists don’t seem to spend as much time writing articles or making speeches on getting rid of the welfare state, anti-discrimination laws and the drug war, as much as they spend time on articles and speeches promoting government control over the government borders. The drug war is a major cause of trouble in Central and South America, and is what fuels the phenomenon of migrants fleeing the drug lords and turf wars, drug traffickers and sex traffickers.

One aspect of libertarianism, besides the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, freedom of association and freedom of non-association and private property, is individualism. The Declaration of Independence has it right when referring to the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are rights of the individual. There are no group rights.

As long as an individual is being peaceful, you leave him alone. That’s the moral way to treat others. If you don’t suspect someone of violating the persons or property of others, leave him alone. Collectivists, on the other hand, believe in restricting the rights of whole groups, such as immigrants or Mexicans or Muslims, regardless of whether one is peaceful or not. Collectivists believe in group rights and group identity politics as well. “Only American citizens are entitled to work at this or that job in America.” Oh, so this American citizen over here is entitled to work at that business over there, even if a Mexican worker is more qualified? What if the business owner disagrees with you and wants to hire the worker? Guess what happens to him?

But exactly who owns the life of the individual? Who is the owner of a business in which the employer wants to hire a qualified, honest worker? Does the government in Washington own these people’s lives and businesses? If so, then control away, Mr. Bureaucrat.

No, the individual has a right to be free, has a right to be free from the aggression of others, and has a right to pursue happiness, and if each individual has those unalienable rights, then obviously no individual has the right to violate the same rights of any other in his pursuit of such happiness. That includes, “Don’t trespass on private property.”

But the idea that someone going into a territory that’s collectively owned (albeit involuntarily) by a particular group? He’s “trespassing”? That’s really a stretch. And so it’s okay that the government police arrest this otherwise peaceful person and arrest his new employer for hiring him as well, throw them in a cage, and so on?

Another problem with the anti-open borders libertarians is this nationalism stuff they seem to now be promoting. And the idea of “citizenship.” The current inhabitants of the territory and new arrivals need to have permission and authorization of criminal government bureaucrats to move about, to work somewhere, to rent or buy a home, to start a business and employ other workers. Everything must be centrally-planned and controlled by bureaucrats. That’s totally illegitimate and a criminal racket, in my view. It is a system of mass parasitism for misfits and thugs to get government employment in order to harass and tyrannize other people.

Another point that Rockwell makes is the importance of a country’s culture. But now we have a country, the U.S., that is so big, spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles and with a population of over 300 million people, it is impossible for such a country to consist of one particular culture. California is a culture in and of itself, for example.

America is just too big to be one single country, and it needs to decentralize. Otherwise, it will continue to collapse economically, culturally and socially. Look at all the fighting over a single prospective “Supreme” Court Justice. Why does an entire population of 300 million give so much power and control to a few corrupt imbeciles in Washington? Talk about irrational! But I digress.

Further Explanation of My Disappointment in the “Libertarian” Party, and New Hampshire

As a follow-up on my post on disappointing candidates in New York and New Hampshire, I was probably a little harsh and nit-picky on Darryl Perry, the former Libertarian Party candidate for President and now candidate for New Hampshire state representative. I quoted from his Presidential campaign platform, in his stating that “all coercive forms of taxation should be eliminated, and government programs should be funded voluntarily.” But I expressed some disappointment that he didn’t reiterate that in his campaign for state representative.

But for his current campaign he did state that if elected he will “support any efforts to reduce taxation and oppose any efforts to increase any existing tax rates (and) oppose any efforts to implement any new forms of taxation.” I suppose that’s good enough. Or it should be, for a state representative campaign in a district that’s quite a bit more “progressive” than New Hampshire as a whole.

It’s just that I’ve now seen the Libertarian Party go from Ron Paul in 1988 to Gary Johnson (barf) in 2016. Not good. It is now hardly even the “Libertarian Partly” w/ SJW statist Johnson. During the 1987-88 Presidential campaign I heard Ron Paul on the Gene Burns show on the radio, and finally, someone to vote for.

And when Dr. Paul was on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour being interviewed by Robert MacNeil, Dr. Paul was not afraid to give the PBS-watching limousine liberals a jolt with his proposals to bring ALL U.S. troops home from abroad and close down those military bases, abolish the CIA, FBI, the IRS and end the income tax. Finally someone was actually verbalizing what I had already been thinking and concluding up to that point. And the October 25th, 1988 Ron Paul rally at Faneuil Hall in Boston was a great time (and was the last time I would ever attend any such rally, that’s for sure!).

And then Harry Browne reiterated much of what Ron Paul proposed in Browne’s 1996 and 2000 campaigns. By those years I was not nearly as enthusiastic and wasn’t really paying much attention anymore.

I began paying more attention to things throughout the 2000s. But in that time we saw in 2005 the Libertarian Partly supporting central-planning nonsense in its proposal for “troop withdrawal” from Iraq, writing, “As the United States removes troops from Iraq, 30,000 will be relocated to other Middle Eastern countries. Ten thousand troops will be placed in Afghanistan for peacekeeping purposes. Decisions regarding troop reallocation will be based on the locations of existing U.S. military bases in the Middle East.”

They aren’t saying, “Close down those bases!“? Well, to hell with them, I say!

And then they’re talking about giving financial aid to the Iraqi government! Do you mean aid as seized form the bank accounts of Dick Cheney, the Bushes and Clintons, Bill Kristol, Bob Kagan, Max Boot, Doug Feith, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, John Bolton, Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, et al.? No, they mean tax dollars stolen from the workers and producers of America!

And then we had Bob Barr and Gary Johnson. Yech. So much for “The Party of Principle” Not a word about private property rights, freedom of association, the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, etc., etc. What happened to the consistent antiwar, pro-peace message of Ron Paul?

So, I’ve been a bit disappointed. And when I see someone who has been like a modern, younger Ron Paul promoting the actual principles of liberty and peace, like Darryl Perry, I find that encouraging.

Oh, and there’s another issue. New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state. They’re still pretty good on the anti-tax area, but the SJW stuff is creeping in now and, as I wrote in my post on this year’s campaigns there, Gov. Chris Sununu the alleged “conservative” is now an SJW, signing into laws the new “civil rights” intrusions into private property and freedom of association and freedom of non-association. So, I am disappointed in New Hampshire as well, and I wonder if Darryl Perry is also another SJW and is fine with the new Sununu LGBT “rights” law or, if elected to the state house of representatives, he would submit or sponsor legislation to repeal those kinds of laws?

You see, people have a right to their freedom of thought and conscience, and the right to live their private lives peacefully especially within their own private property and with security in their own persons. But, New Hampshire now is a disappointment, no longer the “Live Free or Die” state.

And by the way, if you live in New Hampshire and you don’t want to vote for either of the two statists for governor, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, then consider voting for the LP’s candidate, Jilletta Jarvis.

Authoritarian Dictatorships vs. Liberty (U.S. Edition)

Brandon Smith on understanding the tactics of subversive globalism. Perception is important, and the globalists do their best to manipulate the people’s perception of events. Beware the psy-ops. (I don’t think The Donald is aware of the psy-ops he’s been fed by the militarist whackjobs he has at the White House.)

Aaron Kesel with an article about Fakebook now going to fact check videos and pictures. Big Tech’s social media’s platforms need to “fact check” in order to censor out the actual truths and events that mainstream media, i.e. government stenographers, don’t want the people to know. Now that Fakebook is going to “fact check” videos and pictures as well as posts, why bother even using it?

José Niño with a brief history of repressive regimes and their gun laws.

And the Libertarian Party says, End taxation of all currency, including gold and silver.

Not Enough Anti-State Candidates in New York and New Hampshire

Now that New York has had its state primary and that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has the renomination in place after beating challenger Cynthia Milhaus Nixon, is there a chance that the Republican candidate could actually win the election in November?

The Republican, Marc Molinaro, is a lifelong, career politician (first elected to public office at age 18) who presents himself as an outsider. He’s a “government should get involved” person. Based on what little information on his views that’s available online, it appears that he takes a very government interventionist approach to issues. Not really big on privatization or free market answers to problems. And also, he looks a little like Scott Brown, which bothers me.

So, aren’t there any libertarian thinking candidates for governor in New York? Well, there’s the Libertarian Party candidate, Larry Sharpe, who was beaten by Bill Weld for the LP’s VP slot for President in 2016. But like many other “libertarians” these days, Sharpe is a disappointment.

For instance, in the issues part of his campaign website, on “MTA” (Metropolitan Transportation Authority), I’m searching, searching frantically for any reference to “privatize,” but I can’t find that. Why isn’t Larry asking, “Why the hell is government running the transportation system? That’s the problem!” But, nooooo, he’s not saying those things. Instead, he’s got all these central-planning ideas for every aspect of New York’s government-run transportation (i.e. he’s a statist). Perhaps this Forbes article might be helpful, or Walter Block’s book, The Privatization of Roads and Highways (.pdf).

On tax reform, Sharpe discusses unfunded federal mandates, and has some little nips and tucks proposed, but he doesn’t discuss nullification. Perhaps reading Tom Woods’s book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century can be of some help. And more important, no where does Sharpe state that taxation is theft, and shouldn’t be permitted in a free and civilized society.

Taxation is theft because it is involuntary. For any contract, transaction or association to be legitimate it needs to be voluntary, free of coercion, in a civilized society. And in a just society any acquiring of wealth or property (such as by bureaucrats in Albany or on Crapitol Hill) must be with the consent of the previous owner of such wealth or property.

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out (.pdf) in his Anatomy of the State,

The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

And, in his great treatise The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts,

Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.

But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.

If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

And, while I have already discussed New Hampshire’s state-wide elections for November, and was disappointed in the Libertarian Party candidates, I did see that Darryl Perry, who ran unsuccessfully for the LP nomination for President in 2016, is running for state representative in New Hampshire.

In my 2016 article on libertarianism and the Libertarian Party, I quoted from Darryl Perry’s campaign platform (but while it’s the same online, the link has changed), including these points:

I believe
that all coercive forms of taxation should be eliminated, and government programs should be funded voluntarily.
that people should be allowed to travel freely without government interference; this includes the right of individuals to choose where they decide to live.
in the right of self-determination; that is the right of “determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.”
that every person and/or group of people should be allowed to decide for themselves if and/or how they will be governed.

However, in his current 2018 campaign for state representative, he promises,

If elected I will:
1) support any efforts to reduce taxation; and
2) oppose any efforts to increase any existing tax rates
3) oppose any efforts to implement any new forms of taxation.

Why doesn’t he mention the elimination of “all coercive forms of taxation” as he wrote in his previous campaign? Has he gone soft? Is he compromising principles?

And that would have to include the property tax, which he mentions on that page. A property tax is just as much theft by bureaucrats as any other. If you own your property, it is yours, and not the city’s. The property tax is a form of rent that the “owner” is paying bureaucrats, and coercively. Why doesn’t Darryl Perry mention eliminating property taxes?

Anyway, my posts on these state elections has mainly been on state-wide elections, such as governor or U.S. senate races. But I couldn’t help but mention this one for a state house of representatives contest because of the LP candidate’s familiar name.

My point here is that people who believe in liberty, the non-aggression principle, self-ownership and private property really have our work cut out for us in attempting to inform the average person that the institutionalized criminality and theft of the State, of federal, state and local governments are contrary to a society of freedom and peace.

A Candidate for DA Wants to Not Charge People for Breaking in or Property Destruction

A candidate for Boston’s Suffolk County DA, Rachael Rollins, is proposing to not prosecute 15 supposedly “less serious” acts of law-breaking. And that is partly because prosecutions of “petty crimes” is heavier on minorities than others, and also because of “clogged” courts. But like most statists, Rollins doesn’t get the real purpose of the law which is to protect the persons and property of the people from aggression.

For instance, Rollins’s list of proposed “charges to be declined” includes trespassing, breaking and entering, and wanton or malicious destruction of property. Are you kidding? What this tells people is that it’s okay to break into someone’s home, it’s okay to trespass on someone’s property without the consent of the property owner, and we can let people get away with not just destruction of someone else’s property but malicious destruction of property.

This is a major violation of property rights, as well as making citizens more vulnerable to intrusions and violence against them in their own homes. The laws against these kinds of acts are, theoretically anyway, exactly why we have a criminal justice system. That such a system should be run by the State, the same State that steals money from the people through taxes and imposes a monopoly on community security, needs to be debated.

Also on the list to not be charged are shoplifting and larceny under $250. So, don’t prosecute people for stealing. You might as well, given that the government steals so much from the people. Why $250? Do you know how important $250 is to someone especially who is poor? You want to excuse a mugger for stealing that kind of money from some guy with a low-skilled job or an old lady on Social Security?

But she does have some charges on the list that shouldn’t be prohibited by law, including minor in possession of alcohol, drug possession, and drug possession with intent to distribute. The reason why these should not be charged or enforced and such laws should be repealed is that those acts are not crimes. There is no victim. Whereas in the above examples, there are clear victims.

Government prohibition of private acts in which there is no actual victim doesn’t prevent the people from acquiring their vices. All it does, especially the drug war, is cause a black market, which brings on drug dealers on school playgrounds, drug traffickers, drug lords, turf wars, violence and death, and the police state we now have.

I wish there were candidates for these DA offices or judgeships who were advocates of liberty and the rights of the individual, advocates of property rights, and proponents of ending the drug war and repealing laws against other peaceful, victimless acts.