Skip to content

Month: October 2018

The Nobel Prize in Economics for 2018: To Irrational Statists Once Again

On the selection of statist economists William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics:

Thomas DiLorenzo quotes the Nobel-winning economists:

“The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

–Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics, 13th edition, p. 837.

Samuelson was the first American recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics (1970), awarded by the Swedish central bank and not the Nobel Foundation.  Nordhaus is this year’s recipient.  In the 1989 edition of their textbook they predicted that the Soviet economy would become larger than the U.S. economy somewhere around the year 2000.

And Robert Wenzel writes that “Both are technocrats for state tinkering with the economy,” and that “Nordhaus is an academic child of the current climate change craze.” And, “Paul Romer, a professor at NYU Stern School of Business, is off in the, far off, palm reading land of macro modeling, where government tinkering is always needed.”

And also Wenzel notes that Romer is against the idea of private police. (See Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto [.pdf] by Murray Rothbard on the privatization of police. For skeptics of private police, Rothbard begins: “In the first place, there is a common fallacy, held even by most advocates of laissez-faire, that the government must supply ‘police protection,’ as if police protection were a single, absolute entity, a fixed quantity of something which the government supplies to all. But in actual fact there is no absolute commodity called ‘police protection’ any more than there is an absolute single commodity called ‘food’ or ‘shelter’.”)

Wenzel quotes Nordhaus on climate change: “The science and economics of global warming are clear. Unless forceful measures are taken the planet will continue to warm.” Wenzel says it’s “Y2K fears on steroids.”

And that’s exactly right. Why doesn’t Nobel Prize winner Nordhaus understand that the planet is warming and will continue to warm no matter what humans do? It is not preventable, because the sun is getting hotter and hotter, in general, and by 1 billion years from now it will have completely dried up everything on Earth, and by 7 billion years it’s all over. Oh, well.

So, the Nobel Prize is given to people mainly on the Left, to people who are ignorant and irrational, and based on the emotional rhetoric involved with these people’s writings and activities. Another example is Barack Obama, who was given the Nobel Peace Prize, despite his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 his first month in office, increasing the CIA drone strikes that have been mostly murdering innocent civilians overseas, and more, throughout his time as President.

Loyola University Professor Walter Block Boycotted by Hysterical Snowflakes

Target Liberty informs us that Loyola University, New Orleans economics professor Walter Block is being boycotted by students, based on their erroneous view that he is “racist” and “sexist,” and based on his being smeared by the New York Times as “pro-slavery.” Walter Block is really anti-slavery, because he is against involuntary labor.

And Dr. Block responds to those hysterical students in this article, responding to their accusation of being “pro-slavery”:

What about slavery? My reputation in this regard is based on an interview with the New York Times. I was trying to explain libertarianism to them. I emphasized that voluntarism was crucially important to the NAP. Rape and ordinary sexual intercourse may look alike, but one is voluntary, the other is not. The same with a punch in the nose. It is legitimate in the boxing ring since both parties consented, but not otherwise. It is the same with slavery. If someone (an adult) assents to it, slavery is legitimate. Actual slavery, of course, was not voluntary, since the victim did not agree to any such thing. It was therefore evil and pernicious. Why might a person volunteer to become a slave? One possibility, extreme masochism (don’t knock this; our Jesuit tradition recommends toleration). Another, to save his child’s life. My son, God forbid, has an illness the cure of which would cost $5 million. I’m poor. If someone offers me that amount of money to become his slave, I’d willingly sell myself to him, since I value my son’s life more than my own freedom.

And in response to the students who want to boycott Walter Block and his classes at Loyola University, Robert Wenzel at the aforementioned Target Liberty writes:

The students boycotting Dr. Block will never do anything impressive on the intellectual front. They will be moved by the intellectual fads of the day. They will be anti-plastic straw today, and who knows, maybe pro-butt tattoos tomorrow. They are in an important way insignificant. The student that takes Dr, Block’s class to challenge him or learn from him is taking the first step toward deep thought, independent thought and maybe original thought. This will be the type of person that may make an intellectual contribution down the road.

Walter Block is considered by some to be a radical libertarian. He believes in the non-aggression principle. So, he’s not really radical. In my view, violence is radical. I’m sure that those who actually do have an open mind will check out some of Walter Block’s publications, which include these:

Defending the Undefendable

The Case for Discrimination

Building Blocks for Liberty

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

Elizabeth Warren’s Unwarranted Wage

Labor Relations, Unions and Collective Bargaining: A Political Economic Analysis

Is There a Human Right to Medical Insurance?

Defending the Undefendable II

Other Walter Block Publications

More recently, on the LewRockwell.com blog David Gordon of the Mises Institute congratulates Walter Block on his 100th peer-reviewed journal article he has co-authored with students (not including all the ones he has done alone or with other authors). And Tom Woods does a podcast with Dr. Block on his recent milestone, and lists those 100 papers.

More Recent Articles

Thomas Knapp says the U.S. makes one too many parties to the spratly spat.

Richard Ebeling on Quinn Slobodian and the academic attack on Mises and Hayek.

Brandon Smith on how globalists plan to use technology and poverty to enslave the masses.

Jacob Hornberger on why Kavanaugh matters to libertarians.

James Kunstler doesn’t believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. (Her lawyers are also enmeshed with Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok of the FBI-Russia scandal, believe it or not.)

William Astore discusses fear of defeat and the Vietnam War.

And Laurence Vance responds to conservatives’ 10 bad reasons to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

More on the New Authoritarian “Justice,” and Sexual Assault, Civil Unrest

Donald Trump continues to make campaign appearances on behalf of Republican candidates. In a recent appearance he was declaring how great his new Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh is, with his supporters cheering enthusiastically. Now, those cheering supporters are either ignorant of Brett Kavanaugh’s decisions, or they agree with them, which is probably the case.

And no, Kavanaugh is not “brilliant,” he is himself ignorant (or really dumb). As I have written several times now, Kavanaugh imagines that the Fourth Amendment has things in it that just aren’t there. He wrote, “The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient ‘special need’…” such as involving drugs or border checkpoints. Okay, Justice (sic), where does it say those things in the Fourth Amendment?

That Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I don’t see …”unless the government demonstrates a sufficient ‘special need'” or any listing of exceptions, such as “drugs.” So, like most authoritarians who just want to empower the government police to raid the homes and businesses of innocent people for specious reasons, Kavanaugh is just making things up in his rubber-stamping of the police state to satisfy his own ideological leanings. An authoritarian is someone who believes that specific rules that are set for those in power may be broken based on the whim of the enforcers.

And it’s amazing the talk radio ditto-heads who have been complaining about the Obama FBI and DOJ abusing their FISA spying authority to go after political opponents, and repeatedly citing the “Fourth Amendment,” yet having wet dreams over their newest police-statist Kavanaugh that they love so much. So please Sean Hannity (and Rand Paul, too!) shut up about the “Fourth Amendment.” These “conservatives” generally support police “stop-and-frisk” policies without suspicion of an individual, policies that Trump was recently extolling to the cheers of rabid government police chiefs from across the country.

Now, given that Kavanaugh supports such an authoritarian police state and rubber-stamps the unconstitutional Guantanamo prison that exists so the feds can sidestep the Constitution they swore an oath to support and defend, it would not surprise me if he really was the one who Christine Ford Blasey was victimized by of sexual assault. Of course, I’m not accusing him, just saying it wouldn’t surprise me, given his supporting brute force by government against innocent people, by police against presumably innocent people without suspicion, and so on.

And that’s another thing. All this about sexual assault and the idea that one teenage boy might do that to a teenage girl. If that ever does happen, I think that parents need to raise their girls to bravely go and report such violence against them to the police, at that time. And not wait years later. I know that they were drunk and the victim might not remember, and repressed memories until years later and all that. But if the victim is aware at that time, she needs to report the assailant.

Another thing parents need to do is raise their girls with knowledge of self-defense. Whether learning karate or judo, or having mace or a gun, or even poking an assailant in the eyes. Am I all wrong on this? I might be.

And speaking of self-defense, in the alternative news (that the fake news mainstream media sweeps under the rug), we are hearing about antifa thugs going into streets and harassing motorists and pedestrians, and maybe even worse than just harassing. If someone is the victim of an assault the victim needs to know how to fight back. I am very distressed hearing about these antifa thugs targeting innocent people, and hope to hear about someone fighting back, or even shooting back to protect themselves. Glenn Beck this morning played some audio of those things, and he’s saying it might be the beginning of a “civil war.” I hope not. Because if so, those people who are fighting back (against the ones who are initiating the aggression) will be the government’s victims in its arms confiscations, its police breaking into and entering private homes and stealing weapons to make innocent people defenseless. And Brett Kavanaugh will rubber-stamp all that, given his record of neanderthal authoritarianism.

The Modern Irrational “Women’s Rights” Movement That Has Nothing to Do with Women’s Rights

And everything to do with seizing control over the lives of others, and silencing and tormenting innocent people.

Paul Craig Roberts has a column about the modern irrational feminist movement, that goes against common sense and decency. The grammatically correct use of the word “rape” has caused a football coach to be disciplined, while a female college professor wants all males to be tortured and killed but her “freedom of speech” is protected by her university’s diversity commissars. And Roberts gets into the phenomenon of false accusation in Amerika now, and refers to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

I have written quite a bit about all this irrationality and injustice being inflicted by “social justice (sic) warriors” against innocent white people, males and white males. It is especially the hysterical feminazis that are very worrisome. So Roberts’s column reminded me of some of my own past pieces on these subjects.

For instance, in ‘Libertarianism and Privilege,’ Harvard Hypocrites, and the Supreme Court, I wrote:

And just how valid is this “male privilege” stuff now anyway, given the anti-male discrimination, oppression and feminization of America, especially in the schools?

The female-dominated government schools have been banning dodge ball, omitting recess play time, and suspending or arresting little boys who draw pictures of a gun, as well as putting the kids on psychiatric drugs to repress their independence. By college the helicopter moms call their boys every night and argue with the professors over the boys’ grades.

And then there’s the college dorm and classroom “Two Minutes Hate” against males (and white people), the initiation ritual called “Tunnel of Oppression.” Here, the white students are indoctrinated to believe how privileged they are and what “racists” they are because they are white. And the male students are told about the “rape culture,” in which they inherently have the guilt of a rapist, simply because they are male.

Yes, this is the mentality today in what is considered “academics.” The more serious offenses perpetrated by these asinine academic activists include attempts to expel or convict young men of “rape” that actually isn’t rape according to the traditional legal definition, and in fact when, as libertarian feminists have noted, there is no such thing as a “rape culture” in the first place.

And in On the Neurotically Fragile Always-Offended Nudniks, I wrote:

On college campuses, conservative speakers are either shouted down or just banned from campus entirely. That’s nothing new, of course. But more recently, some college campuses are issuing letters urging “civility.” To them, unfortunately, being “civil” means being politically correct. Frankly, the new “civility” really is the stifling of diversity and free expression.

Some colleges are banning the utterances of certain words or phrases, such as the word “freshman” at Elon University. As the College Fix notes, the reason Elon is replacing the word “freshman” with “first year” is because, according to the university’s director of “Inclusive Community Well-Being,” the word “freshman” may imply a hierarchy and may refer to some students as younger and less experienced, and could cause the younger students to be targeted for sexual violence. (I am Not. Making. This. Up.)

So “freshman” implies the younger students, but that word’s replacement, “first year,” does not?

Apparently, if someone uses the word “rape” in such a nonchalant or insensitive manner, such an utterance trivializes that act of sexual violence, and for those who happened to have been victims they feel re-traumatized when hearing certain words and phrases. Such language “triggers” terrible, painful emotions and fear. This has been happening to non-victims as well. But many people are just neurotically over-sensitive now, in my view.

Just what is it with the thin-skinned people now that their merely hearing someone happening to say certain words or phrases — not directed at them, mind you, just happening to be spoken — causes someone to be re-traumatized? If that’s the case, then it is they who may need some further counseling to resolve some issues that they may have, rather than censoring, silencing and stifling someone else’s mere verbal expression, regardless how silly, immature or rude such an expression might be.

I’m sorry if I sound extremely insensitive here, but, seriously, we really have to pussyfoot around and censor ourselves verbally these days, just to protect the overly-sensitive feelings of someone whose fragile being may be harmed emotionally in some way.

In fact, that situation has become so absurd that a male college student, who happened to resemble a rape victim’s assailant, was actually banned from campus and prevented from getting to his classes, and so on. Need I add any further comment to that? (I think not.)

But I wonder how many people who have not been the victims of sexual assault are nevertheless joining in and saying that they, too, feel traumatized by others’ utterances of certain words or phrases? Or are the younger generations now being so indoctrinated to believe that they feel traumatized because that’s the “correct” or socially acceptable reaction that they should be having? Just asking.

And in A Society Perverted by Orwellian Newspeak, Hypersensitivity, and Lack of Clarity, I wrote:

And then there was the young lady who testified before a congressional panel on the issue of mandatory insurance coverage for contraception. That was to show the rest of the world that “feminism” now means women being dependent on others to subsidize their lifestyles rather than standing on their own two feet and budgeting their own priorities.

a recent survey asked 1,058 teens and young adults various questions under the subject of sexual violence, and, according to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the results showed that 10% of the youths admitted to committing an act of sexual violence, and 5% had “attempted or completed rape.”

However, as Prof. Volokh explained, because of the misleading wording and inaccurate definitions of “rape” and “sexual violence” in the survey,  “… 80% of the reported ‘rape[s]’ involved neither force nor the threat of force, and 59% involved only ‘guilt’ or ‘arguing and pressuring victim,’ with no use of force, threat of force, or even alcohol.”

So the results of this survey claiming that more teens are violent now are not examples of America’s decline, given the wildly exaggerated numbers. What is an example of America’s decline is the lack of communication and reading comprehension amongst the teens, and the survey researchers as well.

So there are two problems here, in my view: one, that more recent laws may be reflecting the confused public on what actual acts are and what they are not; and two, that as the culture and literacy have declined in America, so has the idea of personal responsibility. Innocent people may be getting arrested and in some cases convicted for “crimes” which aren’t crimes, and there are false “victims” who don’t want to take responsibility for their decisions or their inability to say “no.”

I want to know what is it with parents these days who are raising such irrational, dependent and irresponsible people? What happened in my generation, or has it really been a gradual thing over time? A century of progressivism has culminated in all this? Can it be reversed?

Amerikan Loony-Tunes

Well, we now have another authoritarian neanderthal on the U.S. Supreme Parasites, Brett Kavanaugh, who loves the Patriot Act, Gitmo, NSA spying on innocent people, TSA groping and molesting, warrantless and thus illegal police searches, and who is a drug warrior and militarist who will do what he can to help to strengthen the police state and the criminal national security state.

The people who hate Kavanaugh actually don’t care about the police state, illegal searches and seizures, and about the use of surveillance against political opponents. Many of them are aware that their fellow travelers from the Obama administration abused such powers and they actually endorse that. Left-wing activists are NOT a friend of civil liberties.

No, what the anti-Kavanaugh screechers care most about is abortion, gender and race, and the LGBT agenda. They want the federal government to have a lot of power including rubber-stampers on the Supreme Court to impose the social activists’ ways of life onto the rest of us or impose an acceptance of their deviancy and indecency. Imposing onto others is the activists’ main agenda. By the force of law.

So the leftists are going to try to impeach Kavanaugh, based on perjury or whatever they can do, just as they will try to impeach Donald Trump if the Democrats take control of Congress. They will continue following their opponents in elevators, restaurants, malls and offices and harassing them.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee is seriously looking at possible perjury charges against Kavanaugh’s high school-years accuser Christine Blasey Ford.

Now, there are those who don’t believe the “conspiracy theories” about Blasey Ford’s possible involvement with the CIA. But given her years and years of extensive psychological research into mind control and hypnosis, as well as her allegedly helping people to beat a polygraph test based on such research and experience, I don’t doubt it. Or she could be a useful idiot for the CIA as well as a useful idiot for the “MeToo” movement.

The skeptical Jacob Hornberger asks, “Why in the world would the CIA want to block the appointment of someone who, based on his conservative background and ideology, could reasonably be relied upon to rubber-stamp anything and everything the CIA and the rest of the national-security establishment do?

Well, we know that the CIA in general is not rational. They have been fixated Cold Warriors who can’t let go of the “Soviet threat,” who have been involved in Gitmo torture to get false confessions from innocent and uninvolved detainees even though the outcome is that such tortured detainees then join the militant forces against the U.S. for the first time. And we know that many apparatchiks in CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. didn’t like Donald Trump’s criticizing them and their wars abroad during the campaign and they have been trying feverishly to get him out of the White House. They are very irrational parasites who will do anything to keep their grasp on government powers and the public trough. So, they would try to prevent Trump from getting more Justices (sic) on the “High” Court, just in the name of being obsessively anti-Trump, even if it goes against their agenda.

I hope the activists do impeach Brett Kavanaugh, and then they can get Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, John “Comrade” Roberts, and all the rest of them.

Sen. Rand Paul: Ignoramus? Hypocrite?

Sen. Rand Paul had already stated that he will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Bureaucrats, and he has reiterated that support. Dr. Paul declares, “The preponderance of evidence from hundreds of people who knew him and worked with him indicates he is a good man with a good reputation for integrity and character.”

Now, what planet is Rand Paul living on? It’s not planet reality, that’s for sure. For someone who has spent hours and hours, speech after speech, and his 2016 Presidential debates defending the Fourth Amendment and its set rules that government must follow regarding searches and seizures, Rand Paul is either a total hypocrite or he is extremely forgetful already at the young age of 55.

Doesn’t Dr. Paul know that as a judge Brett Kavanaugh has trashed the Fourth Amendment? Kavanaugh reads into the 4th as stating that there are exceptions to the rules.

The Fourth Amendment rules that must be followed are that government and enforcers must have reasonable suspicion, probable cause and a warrant signed by a judge to search anyone’s person, houses, papers or effects. Kavanaugh imagines some kind of “special need” of the government to pry and invade regardless of the rules, regardless of the law that enforcers must obey, in the name of validating the police state and further empowering the feds’ surveillance of innocent non-suspects.

The Fourth Amendment says nothing about exceptions. It says nothing about “exigent circumstances.” And the reasons Kavanaugh has for allowing police and NSA spies to break the law and violate their Constitutional oaths? Because of drugs, airport security, i.e. issues where government has no Constitutional authority.

Where in the Fourth Amendment does it list ANY exceptions? So Kavanaugh imagines those made-up exceptions out of thin air. Is he one of those who says, “well the Founders didn’t have to deal with the issues we face today”? Like the people on the Left who believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” and all that crapola.

Besides the Fourth Amendment, Kavanaugh totally eviscerates the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments with his rubber-stamping of the Guantanamo prison in Cuba, its illegal and criminal torture regime, and detaining innocent people without charges.

And he rubber-stamps CIA secrecy, sweeping the truth about its criminality under the rug.

More recently, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote about his personal experiences with Brett Kavanaugh, showing the extent to which Kavanaugh is nothing more than a government apparatchik, an enmeshed appendage of the State itself. Donald Trump is NOT “draining the swamp” when he appoints a swamp creature to the “High” Court.

So, Rand Paul has no knowledge of Kavanaugh’s actual record? The Fourth Amendment no longer matters? The Constitution, and our liberty, no longer matter? So, is Dr. Paul just really ignorant of Brett Kavanaugh’s rulings, or is Rand a total hypocrite and is more concerned with pleasing Mitch McConnell and keeping his membership on Senate committees? Has Rand Paul just become a clone of Donald Trump?

And also, because the anti-Kavanaugh screaming from the Left has nothing to do with liberty, the Bill of Rights or illegal surveillance and searches, and instead has everything to do with “social justice,” gender and race politics, is this why Rand Paul and conservatives and Republicans are all in with Brett Kavanaugh?

Don’t they know that Kavanaugh, too, is a “Social Justice Warrior”? The whole thing is Bizarro World, quite frankly.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: CIA Flunky and Possible Perjurer

Besides Brett Kavanaugh being an entrenched government apparatchik bureaucrat and rubber-stamper of the national security state, the police state, and the surveillance state, it appears that his accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is also an apparatchik, of the CIA and its shenanigans, as well as having close ties to the FBI.

This article from principia-scientific.org, that was linked by the Lew Rockwell “Political Theatre,” tells us that the Republican-linked prosecutor at the Dr. Christine Blasey Senate hearings may have intentionally led Blasey Ford into a perjury trap. Good! Among other alleged lies that Dr. Blasey Ford told under oath, she stated that she never gave anyone tips on how to take a polygraph, even though her former boyfriend stated in a sworn statement that she did do that.

And it’s even more involved than that. From the Principia Scientific article:

In our previous article we revealed that Professor Blasey-Ford’s scientific research at Stanford University includes running a “CIA undergraduate internship program” which is described in full at this Stanford.edu recruitment page. 

Also, it is alleged other Ford family members have ties with the CIA. President Donald Trump has accused the CIA of long being part of the ‘Deep State.’

We also were able to confirm that Christine Blasey Ford was a co-author of the 2008 mind control study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology…

This study openly discusses altering behavior and beliefs through the application of neurotechnology  “inference-control loops” that “hijack” human anatomy to control minds.  The technique is eerily similar to the notorious CIA MKUltra project.

It is also alleged Blasey-Ford has affiliation with one of the developers of the MKUltra program at Stanford, Dr Frederick Melges, along with her being a student recruiter for CIA programs at the University.

And according to Zero Hedge, Blasey Ford’s family is closely a part of the CIA.

But, because there is a two-tier system of justice in Amerika, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh will not be charged with perjury for lying under oath at their Senate hearings. Because they are both apparatchiks of the “deep state,” or the permanent national security state, they will get away with whatever they want.

More Articles

John Solomon at the Hill has this collusion bombshell about DNC lawyers who met with FBI on Russia allegations before their surveillance warrant.

Jacob Hornberger has these comments on Brett Kavanaugh and the looming degradation of the Supreme Court. (Looming? I thought it was already here.)

And Zuri Davis at Reason on new Texas schools requirement that all schools teach kids how to interact with cops during traffic stops and survive. (This is necessary in a police state, in which hysterical loony-tunes mistake reaching for your license as reaching for a gun. Remember, always comply, never argue. You vill follow orders!)

Why Conservatives Are Socialists

I have written quite a few posts and articles on the immigration issue now. More recently I responded to Lew Rockwell’s reiteration of his and Hans Hoppe’s claim that “taxpayers own public property.”

But I wanted to clarify here how the nationalists who oppose freedom in immigration, labor and employment are really socialists in their wanting central planners to take charge over who is “allowed” to enter the territory, regardless of what private property owners want.

The nationalists such as Donald Trump and conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh want to require that people have citizenship in the U.S. to qualify for this or that, or to work, etc. And my contention is that you can’t have both a “free market” and a requirement of citizenship at the same time. It’s either one or the other.

You see, the nationalists and conservatives want to continue keeping foreigners from entering “our” country without the permission of the central planners in Washington. And they say that you don’t “belong” in the country unless you have citizenship. So this citizenship thing really is an authorization.

But I thought all human beings had “unalienable rights,” among them the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those are rights which preexist the formation of any government, and which preexist the formation of a country as well. Right?

Do people have a right to exist and live their lives as granted to them by the ruling bureaucrats? Or do they have a right to exist and live their lives, period? As long as one is peaceful, of course. As Leonard Read would say, Anything that’s peaceful (.pdf).

In the rights to life and liberty one has a natural right to self-ownership. And for those who reject the idea of natural rights, I get that, and will say that we have freedom, period. Until someone comes along and violates that freedom.

And what is the “free market”? It is a market that is free of external intrusions or violations, i.e. governmental restrictions, prohibitions, mandates, controls, reporting requirements, tax-thefts, etc. It is also a market that is not restricted by a government-drawn border. If this person over here wants to trade with that person over there, they trade. As long as they are peaceful. That’s the “free market.” And third parties may not intrude.

But the “citizenship” requirement makes the traders not self-owners but owned by the government. You may not even be in the territory unless you have “authorization,” that is, no longer a self-owner. And that is a part of the nationalists’ belief in some kind of communal ownership of the entire territory by the citizens (or by “taxpayers”). But, if you have a communal ownership of an entire territory, then those who think they own “private” property within the territory are mistaken. Because with the idea of “authorized citizens” who communally own the territory is their ownership (or control) of all “private” property within the territory, each business, residence, etc. In my view, control is a de facto ownership.

And all this is what socialism is. Another example is the drug war that most conservatives love. When the government dictates what you may or may not put into your own body, then the government has a de facto ownership of your body. One of the most important means of production is the people, which includes their physical bodies. When there is private ownership of the means of production the individual owns one’s own body. And that is where the principle of non-aggression comes from, by the way. The individual has self-ownership and the physical aggression against one’s body by others is a violation — but, in statist theory, not entirely a violation if the aggressor claims to be the actual owner, such as the government in its enforcement of dictating to you what drugs or foods you may or may not put into your own body. The drug war is a socialist crusade by intrusive social activists who covet the lives and bodies of others, in my view.

In regards to the immigration issue and trade and commerce, the collectivist conservatives and nationalists want to arrest “unauthorized entrants” even if they are acting peacefully, and the collectivists want to arrest businessmen who employ the peaceful, non-criminal workers even if the employers are being peaceful. This is not an example of the “free market.” This is a socialist utopia. It is utopia because this scheme of government control doesn’t even work!

A free market is not under the control of the community, as though the community in general takes part in the ownership of each business or each worker’s life within the community. A free market is not under the control of government bureaucrats or their armed enforcers. A free market is controlled by the legitimate owners who own the property being traded, including the businesses and the labor of the workers. Free traders do not need permission from outsiders or third parties who are not a part of the voluntary contracts established by the traders. And again, traders also include people selling their labor to others.

And this doesn’t just apply to the immigration issue. Any kind of trade, or peaceful, mutually beneficial activity.

The anti-market people on the nationalism side are advocating socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production. The private ownership of the means of production is not divided by government borders. The separation or dividing up of the means of production by that which is within the border and that which is outside the border is socialism, because those in charge (government rulers and bureaucrats) have seized control (i.e. ownership) over the means of production. In their dictating to businesses whom the businesses may or may not hire the bureaucrats are seizing control (i.e. ownership) over the businesses.

In a free market, business owners hire whomever they want. They are the authorities over their own businesses, not bureaucrats. No need for government authorization. And I think there is a kind of envy going on with the police-statists’ desire to arrest honest businesspeople for hiring “unauthorized workers.” That’s just my view on that.

As far as what is causing so many people to take the nationalist-collectivist view, and in a deeply emotional way? Who knows? And it’s definitely an emotional thing. Nationalism does not seem to be rational, in my view.

The American Founders were not nationalists, by the way. They were individualists. They (supposedly) believed in individual liberty and private property, not some kind of collective ownership of property.  And they were not authoritarians in the political sense. They believed in bottom-up rule, not top-down rule. Those who were nationalists at the time of the American Revolution were loyal to their nation at the time, the British regime. They were the ones who turned in “traitors” (i.e. the Revolutionaries). As written in the Declaration of Independence, the early Americans wanted immigrants to come and they complained about the British King’s interference in that matter.

Note: This post was slightly edited (with 3 words added) since originally posted.

Brett Kavanaugh: Corrupt Bureaucrat

There is a new article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the U.K. Telegraph, reposted on Yahoo, that shows just what an apparatchik of the bureaucracy and the national security state Brett Kavanaugh is. As I have written many times now, Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court or any court, and for these reasons, not because he engaged in drunken shenanigans when he was in high school or college. (Most bureaucrats and judges did those things in high school or college, and many of them are still drunks or drug abusers today, believe it or not. No wonder most of them are such statists, and clueless about liberty and what America was supposed to be all about.)