Skip to content

Author: scott lazarowitz

Emails Responding to “Right to Marry” Article

There were quite a few emails in response to my recent article on, The Right to Marry. Several of the emailers joined in the chorus of the so-called conservatives with the religious point of view, and some gave me some Biblical quotes. That’s fine, but there are many Americans who don’t believe as these people believe, and don’t believe in the Bible. It is your view that God views marriage or homosexuality in this or that way, but the words of the Bible are not the rule of law. The rule of law is to protect the individual from the aggression of others.

Another emailer made the suggestion of intellectual property: “Nobody owns marriage.” That’s correct. If you are a firm believer in the “institution of marriage,” and that marriage should only consist of one man and one woman, that is fine, but others disagree with you. You don’t own marriage and don’t have a right to put your view of marriage into the law that all others must obey. When you claim ownership of marriage, and use the State to enforce your view of marriage and how other people ought to live, and force all others into the State’s rules of relationships and contracts, then you are claiming ownership of the people, which is a very communist point of view.

I’m really tired of this subject. There was an article posted on Strike the Root yesterday, by William Hubbard. It was very brief and to the point:

Amendment Done

I have sullied myself this day, and for no profitable reason. I have stained my soul and made a lopsided deal with the devil. I entered the voting booth this afternoon, for the last time, against my principle, in order that I may fight for other principles. I have not voted in years. This is not out of apathy but out of strength in my beliefs. I do not believe one should force their opinions on their fellow man at the point of a government’s gun. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner is no way to protect the meek, but today I mistook the ends justifying the means. This is never the case and my soul has historically known better. I am ashamed. I hoped to vote against one evil and for a good. My fellow man does not share my beliefs; of this I am now sure.

There was a man whom I hoped was the last voice of freedom and peace to hold this country from ruin. This statesman, Dr. Ron Paul, was the only presidential candidate of the last 50-odd years to truly take to heart the Christian admonition of the Golden Rule and apply it to our policy of dealing with our neighbors; the only man in more years than I have lived to believe in loving your enemies, not bombing them–man, woman and child alike, for harming us in no way. His campaign will be not more than a footnote in our history, if that.

It appears the people in the once great state of North Carolina are more concerned with whether or not two men may love each other enough to commit to a lifetime together than if their tax dollars are used to incinerate children across the globe. They are more worried about enforcing one set of so called biblical values on their fellow Americans than standing by the values straight from the mouth of their professed savior. I am not a Christian, but Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, yet repeated at length the admonition of love, peace, forgiveness and not judging each other. I hoped by turning on my strident belief against the polls, I might stand against the hatred embodied in Amendment One of this state’s constitution and stand for an end to our country’s violence against our fellow man. Instead I have only degraded myself. I have turned to what I knew was wrong only to be shown it was for naught. It was not fighting the good fight. It was not a last stand. It was a vile, despicable act of which I cannot wash myself clean.

The Right To Marry

May 12, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by (Link to article)

Once again, the “gay marriage” or same-sex marriage distraction is in the news and on the talk shows. Some people say it is a societal or cultural issue that government must address, and others say it is a religious issue.

The same-sex marriage issue is a private issue. And yes, the individual has a right to marry.

Who the hell is the government to allow or forbid private people to establish their own voluntary associations, relationships, contracts and marriages?

Regarding the right to marry, while the Bill of Rights does not mention that specifically, the Ninth Amendment does state that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

There are an infinite number of rights that human beings have. Each individual has an inherent right as a human being to one’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as one doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s same right.

Based on this right of self-ownership, each individual has an absolute natural right to do with one’s life, one’s person and property as one wishes, as long as one is peaceful. Unfortunately, statists and politicians do not understand this.

Murray Rothbard addressed the right to self-ownership in his magnum opus, The Ethics of Liberty. (Here is The Ethics of Liberty online at the Mises Institute.)

In my view, the individual owns one’s own life.

The community in which you live does not own you, your neighbors do not own you, the State does not own you.

You own you.

Therefore, the State has no jurisdiction over your life and has no legitimate authority to determine whether you may or may not marry or whom you may or may not marry.

Each individual has the right of self-ownership and jurisdiction over one’s own life, as long as one does not violate anyone else’s person or property. And each individual human being has a right to establish voluntary contracts with others who are mutually agreeable to said contracts. Such contracts are not the business of the State or of your neighbors, as they are private contracts. The terms of the contracts and who may or may not participate in them are the business of those who are the parties to such contracts, those who voluntarily agree to such terms, and it’s no one else’s business.

Third parties who attempt to intrude themselves into such contracts, whether they be your neighbors, Grandma Harriett, or government bureaucrats, are intruders, trespassers, and just plain meddlesome busybodies. And that includes marital contracts.

Does it matter what past court decisions have said about marriage and marital contracts? Not really. Courts are State monopolies of ultimate judicial decision-making; therefore they are illegitimate, because, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has noted, many people within a given jurisdiction did not voluntarily agree to or sign on to a contract to employ such courts. If there is a dispute in a marriage involving a marital contract, the moral and ethical way to settle such a dispute is for the parties to the contract to find a third-party arbitrator. They should not be compelled by legal force to have to use the State’s one monopoly court.

Now, the only candidate for President who believes that the government should stay out of the marriage issue, to my knowledge, has been Ron Paul.

And in my opinion, there should be complete separation of marriage and state. No one should have to get a license issued by government bureaucrats to marry. It is not the business of the government to permit or forbid a private individual to establish one’s own private contracts voluntarily.

It seems to me that some so-called conservatives, such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, believe that the State owns the lives of the people, and should use its armed power to dictate who may or may not marry, and should dictate the terms of these private contracts. Obviously, some religious conservatives do not believe in the inalienable rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These statists support a community’s use of the State and its compulsory legal and police powers to force a certain social view onto the entire population, a.k.a. social engineering.

I believe that Willard Romney does not have the same kind of repressive social convictions as the other statist reactionary politicians, as Romney is the epitome of finger-in-the-air weathervane pol. Despite his past support of “state’s rights” on the issue of same-sex marriage, currently for political reasons, Romney supports the proposed federal constitutional amendment defining marriage to please the religionists and conservatives who believe in socialist government-managed social engineering and societal central planning in marriage.

Regarding the idea of employment- or tax-related financial benefits or privileges associated with marriage: Private employers have an inherent right to dish out whatever benefits they want to give employees, and based on their own views of morality. No one should interfere with that basic private property right.

But since government employers are government agencies, and because everyone owns the government, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe observed in his book, Democracy: the God That Failed, then everyone should be included in benefits without arbitrary discrimination against certain groups of people.

And with the complicated, destructive tax-theft system now in place, what we have now is social conflict and the planned chaos of socialism and central planning. The only way to resolve these issues is to get rid of the socialist system now in place, get rid of the welfare state, and restore the people’s freedom of voluntary association and contracts, and their right to keep every bit of the fruits of their labor.

But really, we need to ignore these petty distractions and concentrate on the more important issues, such as the wars that George W. Bush started and that Barack Obama has escalated and expanded in our government’s continuing provocations of people overseas, and the police state that further destroys our liberty and compromises our security.

Yes, the right to marry is as much a right to establish contracts in any other part of life, and it’s nobody else’s business. It is just as much a human right as the right to not be drone-bombed to death or detained indefinitely sans due process by a dictatorial President run amok.

Among the current presidential candidates, only Ron Paul supports freedom of contract, as well as promises to repeal many of the intrusions into our lives, liberty and property that government bureaucrats have inflicted on us. Romney and Obama do not believe in restoring such individual freedom; their desire is for more power and control for themselves and their fellow government elitists over the lives of the people.

Let’s hope that Ron Paul continues to make waves in the GOP, and if he doesn’t get the nomination, let’s hope he then runs against the two Republicrat and Demopublican statists Obomney and Rombama.

Unions And Anti-Immigration, Anti-Business Conservatism vs. Labor Freedom

In my recent article on neocons and progressives, I wrote that employers are enslaved by workers unions: “Unions have used intimidation to coerce their employers to pay them more than their labor would be valued in a free and open market [.pdf]. Employers have become slaves of workers, and as a result there are fewer workers, because some employers can’t afford to pay the salaries and benefits that the unions have forced them to pay either through ‘negotiations’ or through legislative force.”

Apparently, it bothers some people to suggest that it is really the unions who do the enslaving of employers, and not the other way around. But I believe in the truth. Emotionalistic rhetoric shouldn’t be used to cover up the true message of those who do not believe in voluntary exchange. In a peaceful and just society, all exchanges, all trades must be voluntary, including the trade between an employer and workers. Employers trade some of their assets in exchange for the workers’ labor.

If a worker doesn’t like the pay that an employer is offering, then the worker should have the freedom and choice to leave and find a better employer. When one says that group intimidation tactics or the armed powers of the state are needed to threaten and coerce the employer to increase the pay, one is thus seizing ownership and control away from the employer.

Of course, it is easier for people to gang up on someone to get what you want, rather than making an effort to find better employment opportunities elsewhere. The latter way is the way of free choice and personal responsibility under the rule of law, and the former is the way of aggression. Economically, the way of aggression, intimidation and legislative force has tended to result in many employers not being able to afford the artificially-higher, non-market-based wages (and benefits and pensions) demanded of them, so they cut jobs. And because of further governmental intrusions into these private economies, employers cut whole branches and plants, and thus thousands of jobs.

But in a system of voluntary exchange, and absence of State-protected privilege, coercion and intrusions, all employers have the freedom to expand their businesses and create new jobs, and workers have the freedom to establish contracts and compete for better wages and a higher standard of living.

So when the collective group of workers and their enablers in government use force and coercion against the actual creators and producers of society, they are really seizing ownership of the businesses against the will of the actual people who worked to build those businesses and jobs-providers. That is as much “slavery” (and communism) as is the income tax and all the other forms of State-enslavement of the individual that are taking down formerly free and prosperous America.

(For more, see Tom Woods, Jim Powell, Rothbard, Hornberger, Walter Williams, and Bovard.)

If the people on the left still don’t accept the idea of labor freedom and the sanctity of voluntary contracts, then here is another example, in the context of the immigration issue. As I have mentioned before here (and especially here), and a point of view that most conservatives don’t like, even though I have morality, private property rights and free exchange on my side and they don’t: people who believe in the collective ownership of an entire territory and the collective right of exclusion are thus opposed to private property and voluntary contracts. As Hoppe noted, the right of exclusion is a private right, not a collective or public right.

The immigration issue involves labor and employment. It is also an issue of government central planning and the chaos that causes. As Jacob Hornberger noted just recently, conservatives support the government’s central planning in the immigration issue. (And see Hornberger especially here and here on that.)

The reason that conservatives want the government to be empowered to centrally plan the population and have the control over who is allowed into the territory is that they believe in collective ownership of the entire territory. But if you believe in collective ownership of the entire territory, then you have to admit that, when the collective assumes or seizes ownership and control over the entire territory, then ownership and control over everything within the territory goes with that, including all property, private and public, private industry and the people themselves. It is a system of collective ownership of each individual, his wealth, capital and labor as well.

Of course, such communistic collectivism goes against the ideas of individual freedom and private property. All human beings have an inherent right of travel and the right to migrate anywhere in the world they want, as long as they don’t trespass on private property. And all individuals have a right to establish voluntary contracts with others in labor and employment as well. Private contracts are private contracts, and not for third party intruders to violate or take control over, regardless whether those third party intruders are one’s neighbors, business competitors, or government bureaucrats.

I’ve used this example before, and I’ll use it again. If a Mexican worker sees a job opening available at a Texas business establishment, then he has a right to travel to that business and apply for that job. If the business owner or manager believes that the worker is best for that job, and whose service will contribute to bringing on more customers and thus more profits (and subsequently higher wages for all the workers there, and better service for the consumers), then it is that businessperson’s right to hire that worker, and it’s no one else’s business, period.

But the conservative control freaks and the unions of Establishment workers who want to shut out possible competitive workers all want to get in the way of that private contract between employer and laborer. Economically, this ultimately goes against the interests of the consumers, by forcing the employer to hire less qualified workers who might provide lower quality service.

Morally, this means reduced freedom, reduced productivity, reduction in quality of service, and conflicts amongst the people. That is what socialist central planning has wrought. And always will. Planned Chaos, as Ludwig von Mises would call it. This is a truly immoral way of life that has been destroying a society that really did make great progress as a result of the Enlightenment and the transition from neanderthalish collectivism to individualism and human freedom.

What have been causing the biggest problems with immigration are the welfare state (get rid of it) and the war on drugs (get rid of it). And it is the unions that have been causing their own workers’ unemployment and despair, with their seizure of employers’ assets through intimidation and force, and their enslavement of the business owners.

We need to restore freedom and restore private property, voluntary exchange and contract rights.

Morning in America

May 3, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by (Link to article)

That was Ronald Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign slogan, which manipulated the voters to give Reagan a second term of deficit-spending, expanding the welfare/warfare state, and further enlarging Big Government.

Barack Obama will do similar manipulating of the masses.

For many decades it has not been “morning in America,” given America’s extreme decline, economically and culturally. Many Americans today are dependent and ignorant, and more and more aspects of daily life have been politicized and centralized into an increasingly frightening and totalitarian Washington, D.C.

Many Americans are impatient, intolerant, short-sighted, self-centered, and our irresponsible, spend-happy Congress merely reflects the general population.

Last Fall’s Black Friday shopping frenzy was a clear example of what Americans have become.

In Washington, Congress has continuously, selfishly and irresponsibly been voting to raise the debt ceiling to pay for all its goodies to please the lobbyists and in their own push for reelection. “Let my constituents’ grandchildren pay for my extravagance!” say the selfish congressmen. The Republicans are no different from the Democrats.

And the government has been encouraging Americans to overspend on their credit cards, buy homes they can’t afford, and encouraging students to go into debt already at age 18.

Meanwhile, if the Republicans actually do repeal Obama’s Soviet health care plan, they want to replace it with a Republican version of SovietCare.

With conservatives like this, who needs liberals?

The reckless, clueless Congress voted to give the President the power to have the military arrest and detain indefinitely anyone he feels is a “terrorist” or otherwise criminal, without being required to show evidence against the accused. The real reason for this may very well be as a preemptive action when America’s predictable economic collapse and civil unrest occur.

After all, why then did the Department of Homeland Security order hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition? That’s for a domestic agency, not the military.

Because of the War on Drugs that Obama is prosecuting, and the sick obsession with drug users that local police neanderthals seem to have these days, innocent middle-aged women who never harmed anyone are being arrested and tortured for buying Sudafed at the store.

In America today, the progressives and liberals celebrate Barack Obama as a “warrior” President, by continuing to be in denial of Obama’s daily drone bomb murders of innocent civilians overseas. Meanwhile, the left’s Messiah cracks down on medical marijuana users and whistleblowers like a remorseless beast while simultaneously protecting torturers and government agents spying on Americans.

With liberals like this, who needs conservatives?

And the schools now are prisons. Many of them have police patrolling hallways.

In America today, according to the American Dream Blog, little pre-teen kids are being arrested and handcuffed from school for giving another kid a wedgie, for bringing a plastic butter knife to school, for using perfume, and for burping in class. A 6-year-old boy was charged with sexual assault when playing tag.

Whatever happened to common sense in America? What kind of teacher or school administrator would call police on these children? When I was growing up, no cop I ever heard of would even think of arresting a child, and for those things.

In the government schools, the teachers unions want smaller class sizes and higher pay and more benefits, for a nine-month school year. As Elizabeth Warren might say, “Good for them!”

But teachers don’t want to be tested and promoted based on merit and ability. Many teachers today are themselves poorly educated. America’s international educational ranking has gradually sunk especially since Jimma Carter imposed the federal Department of Education on us.

When I was in school, we had large classes, and teachers were in control. We didn’t have teachers and school administrators and parents drugging their kids up on Ritalin and SSRIs, and other poisonous, mind-altering, behavior-altering drugs back in the dark ages of civility, respect for others and an encouragement to learn.

And now there are anti-bullying and zero tolerance policies, pushed by ignoramuses and control freaks who have no common sense at all.

But some school districts and state legislatures are trying to reform their “Zero Tolerance” policies. Here’s my way of reform: Abolish government schools completely!

And so many people now seem to be paranoid and think that any stranger is a potential child molester, and people are so sensitive now that if you say the wrong thing, you’ll be accused of harassment or worse. I would never be a teacher now out of fear of false accusations or lawsuits. Much of the idiocy in today’s America is due to the politicization and centralization of education. There is no more freedom of thought, freedom of conscience or freedom of expression.

And God forbid one might walk down a neighborhood street alone where there are kids, our of fear of being viewed as “suspicious.” With the DHS “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, everyone is suspicious of everyone else, and you can’t trust your neighbors anymore. Not because they might molest your children or steal your lawn furniture, but because they might report you to local government bureaucrats as “suspicious,” or for doing something on your own property without a government-bureaucrat’s permission.

And these days with the growth of government and its intrusions into every intimate aspect of our everyday lives, one is viewed as “suspicious” for wanting to homeschool one’s kids or for refusing vaccines. Government Child Protective Services (sic) social workers and the police own your children. If a neighbor thinks something in your home is “suspicious,” watch out! Based on false accusations, your kids can be taken away and abused by government bureaucrats. Was there always a little Hitler or Stalin in these government bureaus all across America?

Just a few decades ago, we never would have thought that a “Child Protective Service” could be so corrupt that it would involve itself in child sex trafficking. The late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaeffer’s investigation into  these things may have cost her her life.

America’s popular culture and Hollywood have also contributed to the decline of our society, and the elites have targeted the children. It is the cultural and political elites who are the biggest threats to the children, certainly not everyday parents and average Joes.

And when did so many things in America become so sexualized? Why do so many parents these days seem to allow their little pre-teen girls to wear those skimpy little clothes, revealing a lot of skin and making them look like sluts? And at the same time, kids get arrested for merely hugging a friend in school! What a sick, backwards, demented society America has become!

In America today, police are strip searching people who have been arrested for overdue parking tickets, for walking a dog without a leash, and other minor “offenses,” and the Supreme Court said this kind of treatment by perv-cops toward innocent civilians is okay.

The TSA is now well known for its workers’ sexual molesting of little children and disabled elderly Americans. The TSA has been committing sex-related crimes against innocent civilians for several years now at the airports, and are now moving on to commuter rail and buses, and local bus routes where the misfits and hooligans harass innocent commuters.

The U.S., as Naomi Wolf has asserted, now uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses. I can’t believe that there would have been one Supreme Court justice just 30 or 40 years ago who would have approved of strip searching innocent civilians arrested for minor offenses. Perhaps those justices who lived through the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, and who knew of Hitler and Stalin’s sick abuses of the civilian population, would have seen the handwriting on the wall if such a strip search case appeared before them.

If Obama declares martial law and directs the military to arrest and detain protesters and critics of the government (a.k.a. “terrorists”) – an order sure to be approved by those lettered imbeciles of the Supreme Court – how safe will we and our children be when many members of the military have no problem with sexually assaulting their own comrades?

Supreme Court justices in times past were well educated and informed in history. But it is very hard to believe that today’s Supreme Court who claim to believe in “original intent” would actually know original intent if they fell over it.

“The Fourth Amendment? What’s that?”

“The Fifth Amendment? Never heard of it.”

“Inalienable?” (Crickets.)

In America today, many good cops who protect innocent civilians from the bad cops’ barbaric violence are punished. As William Grigg observed, the good cops are “targeted for the unforgiveable offense of ‘crossing the Blue Line’ by taking the side of a Mundane being attacked by a member of the Brotherhood.” Was it always this way? (No, because in times past, most people had a sense of morality. But not today, alas.)

Cops used to be protective of innocent civilians. But nowadays, so many of them seem to enjoy harassing and bullying innocent civilians, male and female. The neanderthals seem to get off on it. Many cops these days are getting away with actual crimes, while their comrades come to their defense.

These University of California, Davis campus police officers just nonchalantly pepper-sprayed protesters sitting peacefully on the ground. I can’t see how anyone could do that to people. In the old days, I don’t think that cops or university police would have done that. If protesters were asked to leave and they didn’t leave, then usually the cops physically removed them (and usually without causing too much harm). But spraying pepper spray in their faces? What kind of sick sadist would do that?

On May Day 2012, some Occupy protesters, observing May Day with protests and occupying, had already experienced just how much like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany America has become, especially in New York.

This “Us vs. Them,” government vs. civilians attitude has become quite prominent, especially since 9/11. People with government and police authority have been given such artificial authority, and it seems to go to their heads. Many of them act like Nazis now.

“It’s morning in America” for the power-grabbing politicians, bureaucrats and armed police, especially now that they are getting their FEMA camps in place, and have ordered their hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for DHS.

America is a banana republic basket case, and the real psychopaths and lunatics are the rulers and their minions and brownshirts.

Can innocent, peace-loving, freedom-loving civilians survive in this People’s Republik of Amerika in the case of total economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest, and martial law?

Or is there some sort of alternative way to handle the societal and cultural decline and totalitarian centralization that are taking us down?

Lew Rockwell Interviewed by Alex Jones on How Our Mad, Evil Rulers Lust for Power and Control

Lew Rockwell was interviewed by Alex Jones. Lew mentioned how all governments (and their bureaucrats and minions and flunkies) want to be totalitarian rulers, and they want to have total control over every aspect of the lives of their serfs and “mundanes,” the actual producers of society who provide for those very totalitarian bureaucrats’ large appetites for more control, power, and extravagant largess.

Lew Rockwell also mentioned how after 9/11 he predicted all these totalitarian intrusions such as the Patriot Act, and the more recent Nazi-like, Soviet-like criminal intrusions into our lives, liberty and property that the U.S. government is busy imposing on us.

Back in October, 2001, Lew wrote an article responding to all the post-9/11 fascist intrusions, titled, We Can’t Win This Way, referring to the war that George W. Bush started under false pretenses and all the other idiocies of the State, when, the real answer to prevent further terrorism would be to stop all the crimes, the murders of innocents, and the occupations imposed on those Arab and Muslim countries that the U.S. government has been committing for many, many decades, since well before 9/11.

But this new interview of Lew Rockwell by Alex Jones contained a lot of truths about what government, the State, really is, and about who the State’s bureaucrats really are. I sure hope that Lew has this interview transcribed as an LRC article.

I found the interview from the Alex Jones Show on YouTube:

Marco Stupido

Toward the end of his supposedly “major” political speech this week (that most “smart” politicians would memorize), Marco Stupido stopped and whined that he left the last page of his speech, and asked someone nearby for it, who then handed it to him. (“Oh, Mommy! Help me, Mommy!”)

Now, would Ronald Reagan have done that? Of course not. First of all, Reagan would have had his speech memorized, except for keeping some notes with him. If Reagan came to a point at which he either “left a page somewhere” or even just forgot what the next point was, he would have improvised the rest! I believe that Ron Paul never has prepared speeches and, with the exception of perhaps some brief notes with him, he improvises everything.

Ronald Reagan back then and Ron Paul now, both known for thinking on their feet. But Marco Stupido has an infantile dependence on his handlers nearby to save him from embarrassment. What are we going to do with a Vice President (or, God forbid, President) Marco who responds to a crisis by whining that he can’t finish a sentence or make a decision without his handlers?

Oh, and regarding his neocon warmongering and immoral, anti-liberty, anti-property government interventionism and expansionism, I wonder how much the “defense” contractors have contributed to Marco’s campaign coffers (or should that be, “coughers”?)

Justin Raimondo and Pat Buchanan give their responses to Marco Stupido’s “major” speech on how great neoconservativsm has been for America.

Neocons and Progressives: One Big Family of Aggressors and Central Planners, with Delusions of Grandeur

April 26, 2012

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

Regarding the traditional left-right scheme and modern uses of the terms “conservative” and “liberal,” the neoconservatives are hardly conservative and the liberals and progressives are hardly liberal or progressive. Rather than viewing “left” as liberal or progressive, and “right” as conservative or neoconservative, I view left as being collectivist and right as individualist.

Because both sides, progressives and neoconservatives (a.k.a. “neocons”) are of collectivism, I view both sides as on the left. Advocates of private property and voluntary exchange are on the right, in my view.

Collectivism includes the sacrificing of the individual to serve the collective, and the conscription of the individual’s labor to serve the interests of the collective via coercive taxation under threats of violence, i.e. involuntary servitude.

Individualism, on the other hand, includes the protection of the rights of the individual to self-ownership, the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others, the sanctity of justly acquired private property, and voluntary exchange, voluntary association and voluntary contracts.

Connections between the neocons and the progressive-left include covetousness, trespass onto the property of others, delusions of grandiosity and the use of aggression to force their delusional plans onto others. Both groups are also collectivist in nature, and their policies show a lack of respect for the rights of the individual. The individual , to these collectivists, is to be sacrificed to serve the interests of the community, or of the State.

The Progressives

In their utopian delusions of grandiosity, the progressive-left central planners seem to fantasize that the disadvantaged and the underprivileged would be helped if the government forced people to do certain things, with business regulations, mandates, licensure requirements, union protectionism, trade laws and restrictions, minimum wage laws, etc.

But as we have seen from America’s economic destruction over many decades, the progressives have inflicted on us their pathological “fatal conceit,” as coined by F.A. Hayek.

And the progressive-left probably don’t understand that when they support legislation, enforced by armed police agents of the State, that they are really supporting aggression and violence.

Why are the progressives’ grandiose schemes violent in nature? Because it takes the use of physical force or coercion and the State’s hired guns, the police, to enforce the progressives’ agenda. The progressives do not seem to accept the ideas of voluntary association, voluntary contracts and private property.

And the more intrusive legislation they support, such as the Dodd-Frank “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” and the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” a.k.a. “ObamaCare,” the more armed police (via FBI, IRS, SEC, local police, etc.) they require to inflict their grandiose utopian yet counter-productive schemes onto the rest of us.

Workers unions are a more direct representation of the violence imposed by the left and progressives. Unions have used intimidation to coerce their employers to pay them more than their labor would be valued in a free and open market [.pdf]. Employers have become slaves of workers, and as a result there are fewer workers, because some employers can’t afford to pay the salaries and benefits that the unions have forced them to pay either through “negotiations” or through legislative force.

Some people believe that it was unions’ unreasonable demands for further artificially higher pay and luxurious benefits that would have put General Motors out of business, were it not for the taxpayers who involuntarily “saved” the unions GM.

Believe it or not, or like it or not, State privileges such as those granted to private sector unions through protectionist coercion or legislation, as well as public employees unions’ extravagant benefits and pensions – taken by force through taxation from the private sector workers and producers – are in the same category of State-privilege for the “1%” Wall Street crowd who get their bailouts, their Primary Dealer government-fiat-money handouts and their extravagant bonuses – all at the expense of the taxpaying and compulsory-dollar-using working stiff.

And the Occupy Wall Street movement seems to have an agenda associated with that of the progressive left. Some of Occupy’s demands have included more governmental interventions and coercion (to further wreck the economy). Besides forgiveness of student loan debts and getting rid of corporate influence in elections, demands also include a further increase in the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the rich, universal or single-payer health care, and ending capitalism entirely.

Obviously, in my opinion, many amongst the Occupy movement are just not economically literate. Class warfare has been used by the left for a century to inflict its agenda of collective sacrifice of the individual and State theft of the individual’s property and wealth.

But as Sheldon Richman observed, Wall Street couldn’t have done it alone, and it takes collusions with government to cause the financial mess that America is now in. So the Occupy Wall Streeters also need to protest Congressional offices, the Federal Reserve, and the White House to be consistent.

As Richman concluded, the solution lies in a freed market. That is, markets of voluntary exchange and private property, in the absence of governmental intrusions and coercion.

Acts of intrusion into the private associations and contracts amongst individuals that the progressive-left have imposed have caused the reduction of employment opportunities and distorted prices of products and services. Whether it’s in the health care, financial or other industries, central planners’ authoritarian, top-down approach to resolving problems and inequalities of opportunity or wealth is impossible to achieve, because central planners lack the information that is necessary to know what is needed, how much is needed, where something is needed, and what price a product or service should be.

In contrast, in a freed society with freed markets, in which private associations and contracts are protected from intrusions and protected from aggression, trespass and theft, the consumers would determine what prices should be and who succeeds in what particular field of endeavor.

The Neocons

How are “neoconservatives” not conservative and instead socialists and much more closely linked with progressives than with real conservatives?

To be conservative can refer to adhering to traditional social and cultural values, as well as being fiscally conservative. But the neoconservatives spend tax dollars (received through coercive taxation and threats of violence against individuals) and borrow while increasing public debts in the name of expanding their military bases overseas.

Neocons are socialists in that they believe in the public ownership of the means of production in security. Neocons would never consider the idea of de-monopolized, privately owned [.pdf] means of production in security under the rule of law. That would remove the protectionism that the privilege of State-controlled, socialized national security gives favored defense contractors, and would instead provide the population with many more choices of competitive protection firms on a freed, open market.

Regarding the “moral values” of actual conservatism, the neocons have started wars against countries such as Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan, in which much of those countries’ infrastructure and property was destroyed, multitudes of innocent civilians were slaughtered or injured, families torn apart, and for no good reason.

But to believe in actual moral values, one would have to adhere to the Golden Rule of “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

Sadly, when Ron Paul mentions this basic Christian, universal rule of moral civility, he gets booed by the neocons.

When it comes to true conservatism and moral values, the neocons are phony. They’re as phony as a dollar bill.

Besides their grandiose schemes and promotion of Big Government central planning, another aspect that puts neocons in the same category as the progressives is their globalist fanaticism.

In the neocons’ utopian delusions of grandeur, those central planning collectivists have been attempting to “remake the Middle East,” particularly with the first unnecessary and counterproductive Iraq War in 1991, and onward. As with progressive President Woodrow Wilson, the neocons want to “make the world safe for democracy.” (But not safe for freedom.)

As Justin Raimondo explains, modern neocons have their roots in the late Irving Kristol, father of chickenhawk Bill Kristol. The elder Kristol was a self-proclaimed Trotskyist. He opposed Stalinism but embraced Trotskyism.

Stalin, as Raimondo points out, favored “Socialism in one country,” such as USSR and its satellite countries, but not necessarily world revolution, while Trotsky embraced the idea of world revolution, defeating capitalist countries and spreading socialist paradise globally.

Further expansion of the neocon movement and of the U.S. government’s military-industrial-complex ensued following the 1991 Iraq War. In 1996, the younger Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan (later foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, and who has been praised by Barack Obama), published the article, Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy. In the article the neocons called for “benevolent global hegemony.” And In 1997, Bill Kristol and Kagan founded Project for the New American Century, whose main policy paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, calls for the U.S. to spread its might and influence globally.

In 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark revealed that the neocons had by 2001 planned to invade and force regime change in particular countries, including “Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

George W. Bush merely called his crusade a “global democratic revolution.”

As Raimondo observes, the Trotskyite neocons transferred their loyalty from the USSR to the U.S., albeit not a capitalist America but a truly socialist American utopia, in which the central planning government controls all things domestically with its regulatory and armed police state, and expands itself globally as well.

With George W. Bush and Obama’s Patriot Act, NSA spying against Americans, the NDAA indefinite detention of innocents, America has become much more like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, thanks to the Demopublicans and Republicrats’ rubber-stamping the neocon police state agenda.

In a sense, one of the major neocons of our time, Dick Cheney, who has spent most of his adult life not in the private sector being productive but in the public sector feeding off the taxpayers’ labor, has a lot in common with the current president, Barack Obama, who has spent his entire adult life advocating the powers of the State to administer “social justice,” and who also advanced in life through privilege (and affirmative action).

But the “antiwar” progressive Democrat candidate of 2008 Barack Obama immediately became a Cheney neocon after being sworn in as President. Obama expanded the Bush imperialism warmongering and then the more typically progressive-lefthumanitarian” warmongering.

Especially Orwellian is Obama’s new cringeworthy “Atrocity Prevention Board.”


Contrary to the neocon-progressives’ assertion about “spreading democracy” or fighting against terrorism, their aggression is hardly behavior of “peace-loving,” “democratic,” or “benevolent” cultures and societies. You can’t say with a straight face that you are “spreading capitalism,” when you are engaging in murders of innocent civilians, destruction of other people’s property and trespassing on other peoples’ lands.

Just as the progressives’ domestic economic interventions that allow State theft of and aggressions into private property have the natural blowback of “unintended consequences” (an economy in shambles, dwindling freedom, etc.), the neocons’ foreign interventionism has caused a great deal of blowback against America. The war of aggression that President George H.W. Bush and his defense secretary Dick Cheney started against Iraq in 1991, the destruction of civilian water and sewage treatment facilities, sanctions and subsequent disease and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, all led to widespread anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East and the 9/11 attacks.

Terrorist attacks within America’s borders were actually predicted by Ron Paul during the 1990s, based on Dr. Paul’s understanding of the situation overseas, especially in Iraq, and his understanding that when central planners initiate aggressions against the lives, liberty and property of others, there will be negative consequences and blowback.

As I noted here, war is an artificial collectivist and statist concept used to rationalize criminal aggression. It comes straight from the left and from the State and its apparatchiks, propagandists, and merchants of death, certainly not from the individualist, voluntaryist right.

So-called conservatives such as Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity, who allegedly believe in traditional moral values and “small government,” seem to have been brainwashed into supporting the wars of aggression by the neocons that have destroyed much of the Middle East, and have given us the domestic police state that is now Nazifying America. Not very conservative, not really moral.

Real capitalists and individualists who believe in free markets, private property and voluntary exchange, do not impose themselves onto others with aggression. Aggression and invasion of property are the marks of socialists and interventionists.

Aggression, collectivism, and destructive central planning delusions are the characteristics which bond the neocons and progressives together in one big covetous family of power-grabbers. Can we possibly ever free ourselves of them?

60 Minutes Story on Christians in Israel

Apparently, the story that 60 Minutes did on Israel’s Christians has received some harsh criticism, including the Israeli ambassador to U.S., Michael Oren, complaining to the head of CBS News even before the story aired. Robert Wright notes,

You can see why Oren might rather the piece hadn’t aired. Things that Palestinian Muslims routinely say about the Israeli occupation may get more traction in America when Palestinian Christians say them. Such as this, from a Christian clergyman: “The West Bank is becoming more and more like a piece of Swiss cheese, where Israel gets the cheese–that is, the land the water resources, the archaeological sites, and the Palestinians are pushed in the holes.”

Also, Oren clearly doesn’t want this document [for link, see original article], mentioned by Simon, to get attention. In it an interdominational group of Middle Eastern Christian clergy–Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant–refer to the occupation as “clear apartheid.” …

Finally, the 60 Minutes piece complicates the post-9/11 Israeli narrative according to which Israel and Judeo-Christian America are involved in a common struggle against Islamic radicals, and the occupation should be viewed in that context. Hence the importance of the moment when Oren insists Christians are leaving the West Bank under duress from Islamic radicals, not because of the occupation, and Simon presents testimony to the contrary.

Here is the controversial 60 Minutes story:

Congress, Bush and Obama’s Acts of Treason

Glenn Greenwald has this piece, Surveillance State Evils. And Justin Raimondo has this, Is America a Free Country? today.

They are both referring to a recent edition of Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, regarding the Bush NSA spying-on-innocent-Americans that Barack Obama expanded since he became president. Goodman interviewed three people, one of whom a former NSA official, William Binney, who was threatened by the FBI because he testified to Congress about the illegal spying on innocent Americans. Goodman also interviewed an Internet specialist and a documentary maker. According to Raimondo, “Applebaum and Poitras have been detained, searched, and interrogated every time they have re-entered the US from abroad – Poitras over 40 times – and had their laptops seized and presumably copied. None of these individuals have been charged with a crime.”

You see, when dishonest and criminal cockroaches learn that their dishonest projects and criminality which violate other people’s lives, liberty and property have been exposed, they go after the ones who have turned the lights on them.

Now, in the past, I have referred to policies in which the government deliberately targets innocent civilians, such as the NDAA law, as “treasonous.”

The Constitution defines “Treason” this way:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

By “levying war against them,” as Thomas DiLorenzo notes, it is really the agents of the federal government who act treasonously when they target the states, or the people of the states. I pointed out here that, in my opinion, the blowback against America caused by the federal government’s incompetence, corruption and acts of aggression against foreigners could also be considered treasonous, albeit not in a direct way. The federal government’s aggressions against foreigners for many decades has deeply gone against the interests of the people of these United States, those interests being freedom, peace and security.

But for this post, I am addressing the more direct way that our federal government bureaucrats are acting treasonously against us.

I wrote here on the NDAA law, which gives the President the power to have the military arrest and detain indefinitely American civilians, without charges, without evidence against the accused, and referred to that as an act of treason. Any government official who commits such a crime against an innocent person without due process is committing an act of treason. In my opinion, the U.S. senators and congressfelons who voted for this legislation have, in those votes, directly threatened the safety and security of all Americans. Such a threat is, in my opinion, an intentional targeting of innocent civilians. This provision, as James Madison might have agreed, increases the likelihood that the President will use it to “levy war” against the people.

NDAA is a direct threat against our freedom and security by the U.S. government, and by Congress and by the President.

Regarding the NSA spying crimes that the federal government has been committing against innocent Americans without any reasonable suspicion against any specific individuals: This, too, is not only illegal and unconstitutional, but it is also treasonous. This program of intrusion against innocent Americans, violates our lives, liberty, property, privacy, our “papers and effects,” and our “right to be secure.” NSA spying could also be considered acts of war against the people of the states.

My question is, why aren’t there any senators or congressmen submitting one bill after another to impeach the President? Or do we have to go through what many societies have been through in the past instead?

The Zimmerman Case Continues…

This George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin controversy sure has gotten a lot of people talking and writing about it. It seems that everyone has an opinion on it, especially the professional race hustlers such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel.

Most of the discussions seem to be concentrating on the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman and which one was the “aggressor.” I don’t know why people are not discussing who started the whole ordeal in the first place: George Zimmerman.

Zimmerman’s initial act of stalking Martin was the initial act of aggression. But is that relevant? It should be.

Some people don’t think that merely following someone is an act of aggression. But when one is actively following, pursuing, and staking someone else, one is obviously acting in a threatening and provoking manner.

George Zimmerman started the whole thing by choosing to stalk Trayvon Martin, and for no good reason. Zimmerman had no reason to suspect Martin of anything. Just because Martin was wearing a hoodie and was “just walking around looking about” after leaving the store is not “reasonable suspicion.” (Even though Zimmerman was not employed as police or security there, I would think that anyone who wants to go follow someone else should have reasonable suspicion.) Martin was not running from the store, which would obviously make him suspicious. As far as we know, Martin was not actually doing anything of a suspicious nature while walking on his way, only “just walking around looking about.”

Zimmerman was also quoted to have said, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something” and “these a******s they always get away.”

It was Zimmerman’s unreasonable aggression of stalking Martin that apparently made Martin feel threatened. Zimmerman provoked Martin. In this instance, Martin is the one who had the right to “stand his ground,” and defend himself. Were Martin armed, as Ann Coulter seems to think he should have been, Martin should have shown his weapon and ordered Zimmerman to stop following him. And that’s that.

Now, if the races were reversed, and the one who initiated the stalking aggression was black and the one he was provoking was white (or white/Hispanic), then I believe the radio blabbermouths would not be coming to the stalker’s defense as they seem to have been defending Zimmerman.

And most of them probably disagree with me that it was Martin who had the stand-your-ground right of self-defense. Were the shooting victim white and the stalker black, then most of the radio blabbermouths would be saying that the white stalking victim is the one who would’ve had stand-your-ground rights.

But I’m sick of all this race-obsession stuff on both sides. This case is a matter of aggression and who is threatening and provoking whom. Race should have no relevance here.

Does the First Amendment Still Protect My Right to Call Government Bureaucrats “Nazis”?

There is yet another article regarding the police state run amok now. At the U.K. Guardian, Jennifer Abel writes about the TSA airport goons and storm troopers moving on to our non-flying alternatives, the roads and highways with TSA VIPR Teams, and the bus stations and train depots. And it isn’t just train depots (as in Amtrak which compares to air/long-distance travel), but local subways and regular metro buses now.

Why are these Nazis harassing innocent civilians for no good reason? Because they get off on it, that’s why. And no, there’s no evidence of any terrorism anywhere to be found, they will not find any terrorists anywhere (except for the phony ones that the FBI lures into it, like they did Tarak Mehanna, etc.) The real terrorists here are these goons, as they harass and threaten innocent people for no good reason, and the high-and-mighty government bureaucrats who have unleashed them on us. These are the real criminals, as they threaten, search and interrogate innocent civilians without any just cause, without reasonable suspicion.

You see, for government bureaucrats and police to stop or approach anyone in a non-criminal way, one would have to have some actual reason to suspect an actual individual of some actual crime.

If you don’t suspect someone of anything, then you leave him or her alone. That’s the American way.

Unfortunately, Jamit Napolitano, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John Ashcroft and Bob Mueller do not know their history, or they do know about it but don’t care. These people love power, they love putting the masses into disarmed submissiveness and helplessness, they love to rule over their serfs. And their underlings, all the little Nazi bureaucrats and police who follow their orders, also love their power trips as well.

I know some people are bothered by my use of the word, “Nazi,” and in recent months I have toned that down quite a bit. However, America really is turning into Nazi Germany, whether you want to face that fact or not.

After the airport TSA and their radiation scanning cancer-giving and groping and child molesting, now it’s on to train stations and bus depots, and the subways, malls, sporting events, for more illegal searches without suspicion, more child (and adult) molesting, more criminal assaults against our persons, property, papers and effects.

So where does all this lead? Does it stop there?

No, of course it won’t stop there. In Nazi York City, for instance, they already have NYPD going into apartment buildings to stop and frisk innocent civilians without suspicion in their own buildings! as well as the illegal stopping people on the streets and frisking them that these Nazi police have been doing.

But do you think this Nazi Germany stuff is going to end only with city apartment buildings? Get ready for these Nazi criminals doing these things to innocent people in the suburbs as well, and with suspicion-less, intrusions at your door and your being compelled to have to let them in, regardless of absence of warrant or absence of reasonable suspicion. Because “there might be terrorists.” Or “there might be drugs.”

Or there might be someone who didn’t separate the recycling from the regular garbage. (You think I’m kidding?)

Yes, it’s all coming.

Thanks to the sheeple who have voted overwhelmingly for their senators and congressfelons who gave us the Patriot Act and NDAA, and so forth. And it’s not really just George W. Bush who started all this. We can thank Ronald Reagan as well, who encouraged the drooling Oliver North, working out of the White House basement as he formulated his dream of military martial law in Amerika.

Each subsequent generation of Americans seems less and less understanding of the concepts of presumption of innocence and the right to be left alone. Each generation is less and less educated in history, and have no idea how Nazi Germany became what it was. Or the Soviet Union, for that matter. They find the police state acceptable now. Treating our fellow Americans like criminal suspects is now acceptable.

The terrorism meme has been a fraud and a sham. The real terrorists are these government bureaucrats and their Nazi police criminal underlings.

Turning America into Nazi Germany is not the way to prevent terrorism, for those of you who are concerned about that. The way to prevent those so-called Islamists and jihadists, and “home-grown terrorists,” from wanting to commit acts of terrorism here in America is for our government to STOP attacking and murdering foreigners and occupying their countries!

If that wasn’t really the case, regarding what went on before 9/11, then why did Ron Paul — several times — predict that because of the wars, sanctions, occupations and incitements by the U.S. government against foreigners especially throughout the 1990s, that there very well could be a terrorist attack on our shores because of it? He was right.

You see, when you start wars against other countries and slaughter their people who were of no threat to you, those are called provocations. When you provoke your neighbors across the street with aggression, trespassing and murdering their families, they might very well want to retaliate.

But because of the narcissistic, neanderthal attitude of so many Americans now, when Ron Paul points out the Golden Rule, and that we wouldn’t like it if foreign governments started wars against us on our shores, occupied our territories and murdered our people, he gets booed! Only ignorant, self-centered morons would boo the idea of equal under God and equality under the rule of law.

And there are still those out there who believe the lies of our government as far as justifying their turning America into Nazi Germany, and there are many, many Americans who are completely ignorant of actual history of the actions of our own government, and who live in denial, and who accuse those who point out the truths of history of being “on the side of the terrorists.”

No, I am not on the side of the terrorists, and I am not on the side of aggressors, criminals, and bureaucrats whose hired guns the police and military continue to commit crimes against our lives, persons, property and our freedom.

Paywall Obstructions and Copyright Obsessors

What has really been bothering me lately is those online editions of newspapers who insist on a paywall. These dinosaurs of the old media don’t understand the Internet, and I doubt they ever will. Much of the Wall Street Journal online, for example, is behind a pay wall. So if I find an interesting article that I’d like to link to, but it insists that you subscribe, then I won’t link to it. I know that many other bloggers and online writers are the same way. Why should I cause readers to waste their time clicking on a link, when chances are that they don’t have an online subscription and they probably won’t start one at that time, just to see one damn article?

But the print media dinosaurs suffer from the same kind of shortsightedness that government bureaucrats have. You see, when I link to a website, such as WSJ or the New York Times, and readers of this blog click on a link to read an article, that is giving those newspapers new readers, who will also be seeing (and maybe clicking on and maybe even patronizing) the advertisements. For the New York Times, it’s new readers (thanks to my and others’ links), and new clicks on their ads. But the dinosaurs don’t see that. In fact, because of paywalls, they will get fewer clicks, fewer readers, and thus lower ad revenues.

Because of modern day generations of present-oriented narcissists who lack the ability to see things in the long term, they make policies and create obstructions to their businesses that go against their own interests in the long term. Phenomena such as paywalls do just that. And so does copyright.

Unfortunately, the music industry people who support SOPA (and other legislation to “protect IP” on the Internet) don’t understand that they are acting as useful idiots for government tyrants who want to use IP-protecting legislation to censor information and commentary on the Internet that they don’t like.

Those IP-related Internet bills are solely for the government to suppress political dissent. I wish more people understood that.

Now, in the past when I had been looking for a Monty Python video to post here (such as this one depicting an ObamaCare-like doctor, and this one), I noticed that, on YouTube, the Monty Python people seemed extremely uptight about people posting their videos. They felt they were getting “ripped off.” Now I see that they have their own YouTube page, and it appears that since they launched their YouTube page, sales of their DVDs had hit the roof.

But there was never any need to have their own YouTube page to “get their money back” that they irrationally believed was getting “ripped off.” You see, if someone on the Internet posted a Monty Python video, there are a lot of people now who have never heard of them, particularly those age 30 and younger. When someone posts a video of that sort, and viewers to that web page or blog like what they see, they will then go to Google (or whatever search engine they prefer) and get more information, and they will probably find “shopping results” that include that sells Monty Python DVDs.

I guess what I’m saying is that when people post Monty Python videos on blogs or other websites, the bloggers are giving Monty Python (or similar kinds of video makers) free advertising.

I wonder if viewers of Family Guy who saw the episode that made fun of Carol Burnett’s cleaning woman character from her TV show (for which she unsuccessfully sued them) then searched to see who Carol Burnett is (let’s face it, many people under 35 probably don’t know who Carol Burnett is). There are many YouTube pages with classic scenes from the old Carol Burnett Show.

Below I’ll post the skit with Carol as a patient seeing a psychiatrist (played by Harvey Korman). Buy Carol Burnett Show DVDs here.