Skip to content

Category: Bureaucracy

Why Do Conservative Libertarians Support the Immigration Police State?

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has this excellent article pointing out supposedly libertarian conservatives’ cognitive dissonance in their claiming to be libertarians, claiming to believe in private property rights and the non-aggression principle, yet supporting the government immigration controls including the police state along the border (and the police state within the country as well).

Hornberger writes:

Whenever you see an article or a speech advocating immigration controls by a conservative libertarian, you will notice one glaring feature, without exception: the absence of any mention of the death, suffering, and the police state that inevitably accompany a system of immigration controls. There is a good reason for that silence: the conservative libertarians do not want libertarians to know that the system they are advocating for the libertarian movement comes with death, suffering, and a police state.

Hornberger says he is a “limited-government libertarian” (as opposed to a zero-government libertarian or a voluntaryist. I am a voluntaryist).

There actually are prominent libertarians who have been with the libertarian movement for decades and who claim to be “anarcho-capitalists,” but because of their belief in “preserving our culture,” or preserving our American culture, whatever that is now, these so-called anarcho-capitalist and conservative libertarians seem to tacitly support the current immigration police state, government central planning in immigration, and the central planners in Washington and their attempts to control the movements of millions of people, something which central planners can never do. However, those prominent anarcho-capitalists do not openly state their defense of such government controls, but such support is nevertheless implied in their articles and speeches, in my view.

Hornberger lists the several problems with government immigration controls that conservative libertarians seem to be supporting:

1. Fixed highway checkpoints. These are located on domestic highways. Federal agents stop domestic travelers who have never crossed into Mexico. They ask them questions. If people refuse to answer their questions, the agents will break their car window, drag them out of their car, and beat them up…

2. Warrantless trespasses onto farms and ranches within 100 miles of any U.S. border. No search warrants. No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion…

3. Roving Border Patrol checkpoints…

4. Violent government raids on private businesses, ones in which the business owner has decided to use his own money to enter into mutually beneficial labor relations with citizens of foreign countries. That’s what a police state is all about.

5. Forcible governmental separation of children from their parents…

6. Forcible deportations of people who are engaged in purely peaceful acts, such as exercising the fundamental God-given rights of pursuing happiness and entering into mutually beneficial economic relations with others. That’s what a police state is all about.

7. The construction of a Berlin Fence and the proposed construction of a Berlin wall along the U.S.-Mexico border…

8. Border Patrol agents boarding Greyhound buses in cities and towns within 100 miles of any U.S. border, which they are now doing all over the United States. They are targeting Hispanics and anyone else who doesn’t look like a genuine American and demanding to see their papers…

9. Complete searches of body and vehicle at international crossing points, including body cavities after the person is required to completely disrobe in front of federal agents…

In my view, the real answers to the immigration problems in Amerika are ending the drug war, dismantling the welfare state or at least not letting immigrants get government welfare, and, most of all, full decentralization of this entire territory, which, as I have repeatedly stated, is just too damn big a territory to be one single country!

A New Low for Liawatha

It seems that Elizabeth Warren has had a DNA analysis to “prove” that she really is of Native American heritage. The Boston Globe is covering the results thoroughly for her. I don’t think the timing of all this, just three weeks before her reelection bid, has anything to do with it. Nope.

Previous to her 2012 election to the U.S. Senate, Warren finagled her position at Harvard Law School from an intensive affirmative action scheme to get more women on the faculty. According to the Daily Caller, however, Harvard wasn’t too concerned about possible incompetence. In other words, Warren may have benefited primarily from the affirmative action scheme rather than qualifications. The Daily Caller:

In 1991, Rutgers Professor Phillip Schuchman reviewed Warren’s co-authored 1989 book “As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America” in the pages of the Rutgers Law Review, a publication Warren once edited. Schuchman found “serious errors” which result in “grossly mistaken functions and comparisons.”

Warren and her co-authors had drawn improper conclusions from “even their flawed findings,” and “made their raw data unavailable” to check, he wrote. “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.”

The work “contains so much exaggeration, so many questionable ploys, and so many incorrect statements that it would be well to check the accuracy of their raw data, as old as it is,” Schuchman added.

Harvard Law School appears to have overlooked that review, in part, because of its commitment to hiring a woman professor…

“We’re clearly trying to add more women to the faculty,” Clark told the Harvard Law Record in March 1994.

“Clark said HLS was engaging ‘affirmative action’ to the extent it was working to increase the number of women considered and interviewed,” wrote the Record’s Greg Stohr. “He also said the Law School would be willing to hire a qualified woman, even if her area of expertise did not fit an immediate need, but he stopped short of saying the school would lower its qualification requirements for women.”

Now, since when do universities lower their qualification requirements or academic standards? That never happens.

And since when do ambitious politicians lie to advance their careers, or to attain higher positions of power? Did Elizabeth Warren just make it up that she’s of Native American heritage just as an excuse to check the “Minority” box on application forms, such as for admittance to the Harvard Law School faculty? Did she really have to do that, given that she knew she could already more easily be hired based on just her female status?

And, according to Legal Insurrection in 2012 when Warren was running for the U.S. Senate,

David Bernstein discovered that in annual reports by the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) from 1986-1994, Warren was listed as a minority faculty member.  Since AALS bases such information solely on what faculty self-reports, the information must have come from Warren herself.  The AALS directories, however, only identify whether the faculty member is “minority,” not what minority status is claimed.

There seems to be some uncertainty in news reports as to whether Warren filled out the AALS forms, and if so, whether she identified as Native American, with the (Scott) Brown campaign demanding that she “come clean.”

I spoke this afternoon with Alethea Harney, Warren’s campaign press secretary, and confirmed several key details.

Harney acknowledged that the minority status reported by Warren to AALS was Native American, and that while Warren does not remember the precise forms, she believes there was a box or other designation to be selected for Native American.

The AALS reporting was the only time Warren self-identified as Native American as far as Warren currently is aware, according to Harney, and Warren never has joined any Native American groups, or asserted any tribal memberships.

And in a subsequent article, Legal Insurrection writes:

… Warren was listed in the (Harvard) Women’s Law Journal on the list of “Women of Color in Legal Academia.”  Where would the student editors have come up with the idea that Warren was a “woman of color”?  Certainly not from looking at her.

The Journal used the 1991-1992 AALS directory list of Minority Law Teachers — on which Warren’s name appeared as we now know based on her claiming Native American status — as a starting point, then gathered other information from other sources, and then sent out confirmation letters.

That Legal Insurrection article also quotes from a Boston Globe article thus:

“But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

“In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.”

And now we’re hearing via Zero Hedge that Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test is really indicating that she is, supposedly, only 1/1024 percent Native American. (I thought this photo on Zero Hedge was hysterical.) So really, she’s a lying fraudster, let’s face it.

But speaking of outright frauds, Elizabeth Warren’s “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” has itself been a fraud. She is the one who met with then-President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 to put this monstrosity together, along with then-Sen. Chris “Countrywide” Dodd (D-Countrywide) and then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-OneUnited, “Hot Bottom”). They were “concerned” about consumer “rights.”

If Warren were serious about protecting consumer rights, she would have pressed for indicting Obama on fraud charges, given that he and his administration flunkies knowingly and repeatedly lied that people would keep their doctors or their current health care plan under ObamaCare.

Socialist Donald Trump and the Socialist Republicans

Laurence Vance writes on the LewRockwell.com blog:

Year-end data from the September 2018 Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the U.S. Government show that the deficit for fiscal year 2018 was $779 billion. The federal government spent $4,107.7 billion in fiscal year 2018 (which ended on Sept. 30, 2018), including $600 billion for defense offense (which is actually much higher if all “defense”-related spending is counted). The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They are 100% to blame for the profligate spending. Republicans are big spenders just like Democrats. The only limited government they seek is a government limited to control by Republicans.

And Dr. Vance also has an article today that explains Donald Trump’s own socialist mentality and policies, in Trump’s love for Medicare, Medicaid and Socialist Security Social Security.

More Articles

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute says, You want to make America great again? Start by making America free again. “If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public sidewalk and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window: pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.”

James Bovard on “believe women”: Apply the Christine Blasey Ford test to TSA’s female victims.

Jacob Hornberger with some lessons from Khashoggi’s disappearance, including that the U.S. government needs to end all foreign aid, or its “government-to-government bribe to ensure loyalty.”

Laurence Vance asks, What should be illegal?

Justin Raimondo on the Saudi collapse.

And Zero Hedge with an article on the FBI concealing evidence that “directly refutes” the premise of Trump-Russia probe.

Dow Crashing? Don’t Panic. Trump Can Cut It Out with the Trade Nonsense

So the stock market fell a little bit yesterday, the Dow went down about 831 points, and some people are panicking. No, I don’t think it’s anything like in 2008, it’s just a “correction.” And I don’t think that it has anything to do with the Fed raising interest rates. Some analysts are saying it’s being caused by the tech sector. I don’t think it’s anything to worry about.

There was a worse downturn in February. At that time I wrote,

Following last Friday’s big 665.75 point decline, Dow Jones Industrial Average then plummeted another 1175 points yesterday. At the opening bell this morning it fell another 600 points but is already up 30 points as I’m writing this. I don’t expect this decline to be an indication of a repeat of 2008. It’s just going through some adjustments, that’s all. Nothing to worry about.

For what it’s worth, 2015 was the worst year since 2008, up to December 2015. In July 2015, the DJIA was at 17,568, in August it went down to 15,781, in November back up to 17,910, in January 2016 back down to 15,944, and in April 2016 back up to 17,900 and it has continued to mainly go up since then. You can look at any number of interactive charts to see the numbers over these recent years.

But what’s going on now? Some say it’s technological issues, although there are other factors. I don’t know if Donald Trump’s State of the Onion last week had anything to do with it, or the release on Friday of the Republican FISA memo.

But it is clear that the Trump tax cuts, without any significant cuts in government spending, will have a variety of effects on things. The government is completely out of control, spending like drunken sailors, and Donald Trump is clueless about that. And the Federal Reserve also plays a role.

Today’s Dow is going up and down, very negative, then in the positive territory, and negative again. It could get worse over the next week, like in February. Besides the tech stocks I think that people are “concerned” over Donald Trump’s trade idiocy. His intrusions into the American people’s economic and trade matters are what could cause a further downturn.

The problem with protectionists like the economic ignoramus egomaniac Donald Trump is that they are control freaks who just don’t want to let people be free to do what they want. Just let the consumers buy whatever they want, from wherever and whomever they want, and let producers buy whatever capital goods they need and from wherever and from whomever they want. It’s called freedom, Donald. And prosperity, as well. More freedom has led to more prosperity throughout history, no?

When the government intrudes and imposes the wants and desires of control-freak bureaucrats like Trump and his cohorts and cronies, such intrusions cause distortions in the markets, price distortions and even higher unemployment as well, in the long run. And of course Wall Street will react to the monkey wrench the Control-Freak-in-Chief is throwing into what could have been a stronger economy.

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.

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.