Skip to content

Category: Free market

For Equal Justice Under the Law, De-Monopolize Government Police

I wanted to write my response to the recent “Libertarian” Party shenanigans, but it’s going to have to wait now. After 2 months of “COVID” imprisonment and fascist business closures, mask orders and socialist distancing, and my having to write about those things, now the narrative managers have abruptly changed the subject to the RACE crap, out of no where!

The RACE crap and “racism” here, there and everywhere coming out of the woodwork after a long time that we haven’t had to hear that, and the recent police brutality incident in Minneapolis which has little to do with race or racism.

America is NOT a “racist country”! The U.S. over 50 years ago installed the “Civil Rights” Act and nationwide abolished Jim Crow laws and made it a crime to “discriminate” against people based on race, especially in businesses, schools and “public accommodations.” Many businesses and educational institutions have “affirmative action” programs for people of color.

And prior to the past 3 months scamdemic Wall Street panic-selling and governors-forced business closures, by the end of last year the unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans and women were at their lowest ever in history. Thanks to Trump signing those tax cuts and the deregulation he imposed.

But the scamdemic political scammers and Trump haters took all that away now. And the rioters are helping the self-destructive cause even further.

And this certainly isn’t a defense of Donald Trump, who continues to prosecute the racist drug war in which black Americans are incarcerated at much higher rates than whites, and Trump who continues the drone strikes which mainly murder innocent civilians in the Middle East and Asia.

Nevertheless there was Plan A to get rid of Donald Trump, “Russia collusions” that didn’t work. And then Plan B, the made-up Impeachment fiasco (that also didn’t work). And then Plan C, as soon as the Impeachment failed in February, the obsessed Trump haters then exploited a “virus” and imposed their fascist orders on the people to cause economic devastation, which they did.

And now it’s Plan D, exploit a nazi cop in Minneapolis murdering a black suspect, and use that one incident to engage in more economic destruction, theft, and falsely claim there’s an epidemic of racism in America.

So the rioting and looting, burning down buildings and cars and hurting people has nothing to do with racism. (Unless you want to refer to black-instigated anti-white racism…)

If the “Black Lives Matter” or antifa “protesters” cared in the least about the plight of black people, they wouldn’t have destroyed the minority-owned businesses in Minneapolis and other cities. And further, many of those small businesses are local grocers and gas stations, the destruction of which leaves lower-income residents at a further disadvantage in their providing for themselves. Thanks, “protesters.”

And those governors, mayors, or police chiefs who told local police or National Guard to “stand down”? Useless tax eaters, all of them.

Much of this is not to do with race, but is mainly to do with the people on the left carrying out their anti-capitalism political agenda.

In 2009-2010 were the Tea Party protests and rallies, especially after ObamaCare and other further centralization and tax-theft policies, because those protesters don’t like more of their income and earnings and freedom taken away from them. They cleaned up after themselves after their rallies and they didn’t destroy property. And then in 2011-2012 there were the Occupy Wall Street protests, in which property was destroyed and protesters left disgusting messes. There was a stark difference between the two groups. The Occupy Wall Street crowd wanted the government apparatus to be used to “take from others,” and get their “fair share,” if you know what I mean.

More recently, there have been crowds of people protesting peacefully against the fascist government-ordered shutdown of the businesses and fascist stay-at-home orders. Those protesters have gone to state capitols with their signs and chanting and giving public speeches, but by and large they were not violent.

The current return of protests, in which many of the “protesters” are not protesters but are criminal marauders and monsters, are not acting out any legitimate form of protest. They are burning down businesses and stealing from them, setting cars on fire, and hurting people.

They are merely acting out the same anti-capitalist mentality (.pdf) of the same people of the white-collar variety who had been panic-selling on Wall Street and ordering businesses shut down.

But the main issue with the police murder of a black man in Minneapolis is not to do with the race of victim or perpetrator, but was yet another criminal act of government violence against a civilian.

The answer to THAT problem is to de-monopolize community policing and security. Abolish government police. No one should have legal authority over anyone else, in which if the “civilian” does something criminal he goes to jail but if the “authority” does something criminal he does not go to jail. That is not a free society or a civilized society. That’s a criminal society, in my view.

As I wrote back in 2013, “No more police socialism.” Here is an excerpt:

So the way I see it, theoretically, police or “law enforcement” socialism is when government bureaucrats possess the ownership of the means of production and provision of community policing and security while outlawing (at least implicitly) any competing agencies to do the same.

But a more honest assessment of police socialism is this: The people of a community already possess or could possess the means of providing their own security themselves. Those interested in doing so already have the natural right to establish private policing firms or voluntary groups and have a right to possess whatever armaments they wish to carry out such endeavors.

But in the current situation of police socialism, government bureaucrats have stolen from the people their ability to provide their own security, by making such attempts artificially unlawful and through disarmament schemes weakening the people’s abilities to physically defend and protect themselves when their lives and property are threatened.

The government bureaucrats have usurped and forcibly monopolized the means of production in security provision at the people’s expense. That, in a nutshell, is what police socialism is.

So what do these bureaucrats and monopolists do with their monopoly power, enforce the law?

Well, they enforce the thousands and thousands of made-up laws on the books which make artificial criminals of totally innocent human beings, that’s for sure.

Okay, but is such a government-monopolized system efficient? I’ll bet Murray Rothbard would answer in the negative.

Do the government police protect people from the aggressions of others? (Hmmm. I hear snickering out there.)

As CopBlock’s Peter Eyre noted recently, the government police have no legal obligation to protect anyone.

So why the hell do they exist?

As the late William Norman Grigg correctly pointed out, government monopolized community policing and security is a “protection” racket.

And more recently, Ryan McMaken at the Mises Institute addresses the uselessness of the government police racket in Minneapolis.

Government police are useless. That is why the business owners in Minneapolis and elsewhere need to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, and to use them if necessary, to protect their businesses, to protect their lives and their livelihoods, like the Korean business owners did in the “wild west” of L.A. during the 1992 Rodney King riots.

And I am not suggesting that citizens just go and shoot people, obviously. But people have a right to self-defense. If someone is breaking into your home you have a right to exercise self-defense to protect yourself and your family. The same right applies to your place of business, which is your livelihood, your means of providing sustenance. Anyone directly invading and physically wrecking such means of sustenance is literally threatening your life.

But such rights of self-defense also apply to when the government is threatening you.

And no, I am not suggesting that people go and shoot police either! BUT, theoretically, people have the right to defend themselves against anyone who directly threatens their lives. Larken Rose controversially addressed that issue in this article.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a few years ago,

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Speaking of Jews, see this article on Jews and “gun control,” on the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

And by the way, while Ronald Reagan, the NRA and the KKK all tried to legally prevent black Americans from owning and possessing firearms, it was the Black Panthers of the 1960s and ’70s who were gun rights biggest advocates, wrote UCLA law professor Adam Winkler.

I know, a lot of this is “10 foot pole” stuff, but there is a lot of ignorance and simple-mindedness out there. Certain ideas must be discussed.

If you are interested in all these ideas, and I hope you are, for further info see these important and enlightening articles:

From Murray Rothbard’s book, For a New Liberty, Ch. 12, “Police, Law and the Courts.” (Here is an excerpt by Murray Rothbard reprinted in Reason magazine, 1973.)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the idea of a private law society in these videos and the text version, from May of 2011.

Robert Murphy: But wouldn’t warlords take over? and The possibility of private law.

Per Bylund on competition in private justice.

And William Anderson on the State courts where the Duke lacrosse case is concerned.

More on the COVID Scamdemic

Robert Wenzel posts on the “nut job power freak governors” who ordered nursing homes to have to admit coronavirus patients, knowing that the elderly are the group most vulnerable to succumbing to the coronavirus COVID-19. New York and the criminal Cuomo aren’t the only states murdering elderly people in nursing homes. Wenzel shows a tweet by Jack Posobiec who states that his team has found that New York, New Joisey, Michigan, California, and Pennsylvania all ordered nursing homes to have to admit coronavirus patients.

And Wenzel has another post regarding the mayor of Ocala, Florida who says he will not enforce the state’s “phase one” of lifting sanctions on businesspeople and so on. (The governors, including Massachusetts governor Charlie Half-Baker and New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sunununu, are lifting their sanctions by “phases,” in true Soviet, central planning style. Those two idiots, and Florida Gov. Ron Duh Santis, are all Rethuglicans, not Dumocrats. However, I’m not sure about Sunununu but I KNOW that Charlie Half-Baker HATES Donald Trump, and I think his Trump-hate is one of his main motivations of his lockdown crap, another one being Baker wants that stimulus money! But Ron Duh Santis is a Trump supporter, so the main reason I can see for his playing along with this fascist unconstitutional crapola is because he is just really DUMB, the more accurate phrase for him being “Useful Idiot,” in service to the ones with their society-destroying agenda.)

Speaking of that, Jon Rappoport has this terrific article on the “Chinese system coming to America.” It’s a plannedemic, for a new Soviet Amerika. (I know, “Chinese,” “Soviet,” not that much difference.)

And Dr. Mercola has an article on the well-known hazards of coronavirus vaccines. The greedy, Big Pharma agenda has been way out in the open now for all to see.

Libertarian-Based Talks on Coronavirus Panic

Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling of the Future of Freedom Foundation discuss the coronavirus panic and the libertarian answer to the problem.

James Corbett and James Even Pilato discuss medical martial law with coronavirus panic:

And Larken Rose discusses coronavirus predictions:

News and Commentary

Jeff Tucker asks, Why the draconian response to COVID-19?

Alan Reynolds: COVID-19 deaths and incredible WHO estimates.

Robert Wenzel on whether or not we should panic.

Jon Rappoport: Vimeo censors my interview, in which Catherine Austin Fitts and I discuss coronavirus and vaccines

Larry Romanoff asks, Why is the U.S. apparently not testing for the COVID-19 coronavirus? and, Did the virus originate in the U.S.?

Dr. Mercola: Former CDC head cashes in on Merck stock.

Donald Boudreax: Price gouging in desperate situations.

Laurence Vance: In defense of price gouging.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says, Repeal the Patriot Act.

Chris Calton: Joe Biden, father of the drug war’s asset forfeiture program.

Becky Akers discusses bans on plastic bags: The useless ban the useful.

John Horgan: The cancer industry: hype vs. reality.

Joe Martino: CDC admits in federal court they have no evidence “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

James Delingpole: Wikipedia airbrushes list of climate skeptic scientists out of history.

Paul Craig Roberts: The consequences of identity politics.

Ron Paul: Central banking is socialism.

Jacob Hornberger: End the Fed.

Brian Balfour: Central planning, the true economic chaos.

Sheldon Richman: Democracy can’t fix socialism.

José Niño: The IRS’s history of attacking political dissenters and opponents.

Richard Ebeling: Liberalism should reject welfare statism.

James Bovard: U.S. foreign policy perpetual perfidy.

And Matt Agorist: Journalist’s home raided and he was kidnapped because he refused to name a source.

Socialism vs. Freedom

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, Socialism vs. Freedom:

Bernie Sanders seems to be getting a lot of support from people who think they want “socialism” in America, especially the young people, many of whom know nothing about what socialism really is.

There is a lot of misinformation out there, including the assertion that Sweden and other Nordic countries are “socialist,” which they aren’t because of their protection of private property and the private ownership of the means of production. So, those countries are capitalist countries but with a large welfare state, just like the U.S.

But the truth is, actual socialism has a history of economic stagnation and impoverishment, tyranny, and political oppression. The “equality” that Bernie supporters are looking for does not exist in socialist societies.

In such socialist societies the political class are the elites who climb the ladder of success based on political favoritism and corruption, not based on abilities, talent, merit and risk. The political class are the rulers and the rest of the people are their servants, quite frankly.

No “equality” there.

So Bernie is running on a platform to “tax the billionaires” to pay for all the socialist programs he wants to impose.

But Bernie has also said he wants to eliminate the billionaires (until there are no more billionaires to tax, and thus no more wealth to fund his schemes!).

The truth is, these politicians, demagogues, and propagandists such as Bernie are really for government power and control, and they oppose freedom, even though it was freedom that most contributed to the biggest expansion in growth and progress in human history and the biggest rise in the standard of living of all (and not just the “1%” or the “rich” or billionaires, but everyone).

More than guided by motivations of charity, giving and compassion, the Bernie socialists seem guided by envy and covetousness in their expressed desire to take other people’s money and stuff away from them. Sadly, earlier misguided Americans began the process for them by imposing the income tax and empowering the IRS.

And the truth is, socialism is anything but “social.” It is in fact anti-social. Socialism is antithetical to peace, and has no place for the peacefulness of voluntary exchange. Socialists impose policies of coercion, compulsion, and government theft of private wealth, government exploitation of your labor.

Many people agree with the policies of aggression against peaceful people, from the antifa demonstrators who beat up MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporters to the police state enforcing immigration and drug laws.

And Project Veritas showed that some Bernie supporters are threatening to burn down Milwaukee and other cities if Bernie doesn’t get the Democrat nomination.

But these people merely reflect the actual government policies they support. Socialism requires a heavy dose of State power and aggression over the people and a powerful police state, goons with badges and guns, to enforce the bureaucrats’ iron fist.

The differences between socialism and freedom?

Unlike in the private sector in which all transactions, trades and associations must be voluntary, and the use of coercion with threats of force are considered criminal, under socialism the transactions between government and the workers are involuntary. You must obey the government’s demands for whatever it wants, or else.

And the U.S. quickly became this kind of society after the income tax was imposed in the early 20th Century. Which is what enabled the aforementioned enrichment of the ruling class in Washington. (Hence Bernie’s three homes and $2 million in wealth. But what has he actually produced and served consumers with in return? Nothing, quite frankly.)

And it is not just the “rich” who are robbed by the government, it is everyone. Either through direct taxation or indirectly via inflation and a central bank such as the Federal Reserve System.

So we have to decide whether we want to live in a free society, a society of peace and prosperity, or not.

The socialist society, or in the U.S. the “mixed economy” as it is sometimes called, requires the violation of the people’s freedom.

What exactly is freedom, as compared to the enslavement of the government-owned and controlled economy under socialism?

In freedom, you own your life and your body. Not the government. You own your labor and all the energy and effort you put into your productivity, until you voluntarily sell your labor to an employer, a client or customer. And you thus own the earnings or compensation that are paid to you voluntarily by such employers, clients or customers, which are based on mutually agreed-to voluntary contracts.

In the modern era, more freedom has led to the periods of the greatest growth and expansion, and raised the standard of living of all in society. Socialism and less freedom have a history of reducing the standard of living of the people.

For example, we still have generally a lot of freedom in the tech sector now, unlike the healthcare and some other sectors. The reason you have a very modern and convenient iPhone and other little gadgets is because of that freedom.

All the advances and inventions of modern tech, as well as inventions in other areas, came from that freedom and free markets. They did not come from socialism.

What inventions, exactly, came from the socialist Soviet Union? From Cuba, North Korea, or Iran?

And healthcare in the U.S., for example, right now is not nearly as free and affordable as it used to be.

What happened? The government came in during the 1960s and imposed Medicare and Medicaid. Those interventions, mandates and intrusions distorted the markets in healthcare and caused havoc, which led to the increase in costs in healthcare. Prior to those intrusions, if someone was unable to afford to go to a doctor or hospital, it was affordable for doctors to provide medical care for people for free, which many did.

There was much more freedom of healthcare in general in the old days, as well. Doctor-patient confidentiality was also more secure. Governmental intrusions have compromised that, too.

Another example of the destruction of socialism is Venezuela, which Bernie enthusiastically praises. In Venezuela the government seized the ownership of the means of production of food. Food production and distribution are under the ownership and control of the government. And what happened? The government distortions in those markets gave the Venezuelan people empty store shelves, long lines, mass starvation, violence, corruption, and death.

In contrast, look at all the store shelves in grocery stores in the U.S. Fully stocked, most of the time, with many, many choices, all as a result of private ownership of food production and distribution, and the freedom of the people running those industries to do what they think is right at whatever given time, not based on what a bureaucrat demands.

In socialism the government owns the means of production. And what is the most important means of production? The people, of course.

In socialist societies you do not own your own life and your labor’s earnings. The government is the initial, primary owner of your labor and the government gives to you whatever it thinks you deserve.

Meanwhile, when there’s more freedom, especially the freedom to keep more of what you earn, businesses expand more and the workers are getting better pay and benefits so they can afford that car, a new refrigerator, etc. A recent example: the tax cuts of December, 2017 in the U.S. that were followed by companies immediately announcing their workers’ raises and bonuses.

In a genuinely free society the companies are privately owned and the capital of the private manufacturers and investors is free from government theft. This leaves the people free to invest in and expand their businesses to produce better goods and services to better serve the consumers.

Freedom is one big reason why people in the society can afford to have an iPhone, a TV, a car, and air conditioning.

In contrast, when the State owns and runs production and industry, which is what Bernie Sanders wants (like in modern Cuba and the old Soviet Union), government bureaucrats decide what you will do with your life and career (tracking kids from kindergarten to college, etc.). That is because in such societies you have no freedom and your right to self-ownership is usurped away by the rulers, i.e. a slave of the State.

And in such socialist societies there is no political freedom including the right to “question authority” and challenge the State’s abuses. Given that the U.S. is very socialist in the kinds of powers and controls the federal government already has, it’s no wonder the regime in Washington railroads anyone who rocks the establishment boat, from Donald Trump to political prisoners Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

In socialist societies that Amerika had become long ago but many people aren’t willing or able to acknowledge, you can see how political power over others and the political process is an obsession. Look how members of the political class are climbing and grasping for power with the current 2020 elections.

The two major parties, Republican and Democrat, a.k.a. Republicrat and Demopublican, are really a racket. They are really a branch of the government, federal, state and local. Just look how those two parties have legally restricted the right of third parties or independent candidates to get their names on ballots. And the media, by the way, are another branch of the government, as their propaganda mainly repeats the government’s word without question.

Anti-establishment media people are “heretics,” “unpatriotic,” “Russia puppets,” and censored by mainstream media, or “de-platformed” by the government’s social media minions.

And, while Donald Trump in many ways is also an authoritarian socialist, just see how the apparatchiks and propagandists of the permanent extra-constitutional national security state and bureaucratic state went after him, just because he said, “Drain the Swamp.” Just look how the State’s criminals of government made things up, like “golden showers” and concocted a Steele Dossier to falsely accuse and frame-up a duly elected U.S. president. And when that didn’t work, they then made up more “crimes” from a mere phone call toward an impeachment, and that didn’t work either.

And with the pathological political class the Republicans are just as bad as the “strategizing” Democrats. Some of the conservative talk radio hosts and their ditto-head callers are saying they will vote in Democrat primaries for Bernie. But how did Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” work out? (It gave us Obama!)

You see, this is how things are when everything in life is politicized in a socialist society.

The conservatives, by the way, love socialism when it comes to the immigration issue. They love the idea of the central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people, which is impossible.

The Rush Limbaugh crowd loves having the government restrict the rights and freedom of foreigners entering “our” country, entering the socialized and “publicly-owned” territory of Amerika and imposing a police state on everyone at or near the border.

In that kind of socialism that conservatives love, you have to get the government’s permission to get a job somewhere or to hire someone.

In contrast, in a free society people come and go as they please, they go to where a job is available and they buy or rent a home where they want to live, and employers just hire the best person for the job. No permission from a parasite bureaucrat in Washington needed.

In a free society, you do what you want to do with your own life, your labor and property, as long as you are peaceful and don’t violate the persons or property of others. Not complicated.

And in a free society, there is no government “war on drugs.” You own your own body and consume whatever you decide, and you’re responsible for your own decisions and actions. But when life is socialized, the government is empowered to own and control everything, including you.

Currently in Amerika, the government owns your body and bureaucrats decide what you may or may not put into “your” body.

In a free society, if you want to use, buy or sell a plastic bag, then you use, buy or sell a plastic bag. As long as you don’t litter. People littering is the real problem as far as environmental issues are concerned, not plastics per se.

In a free society no one may go to government bureaucrats to ban plastic, or ban anything for that matter. No banning drugs by law, no banning sugary drinks or salt, no banning guns, no bans on otherwise peaceful activities.

So a free society is a “leave people the hell alone” society. Whether the Bernie, Bloomberg or Trump socialists and fascists like it or not!

And in a free society, you educate your children however you want. And when there is freedom, there would be many more schools and choices, and the government doesn’t run the schools. No federal Department of Education, no local school committees. And it’s all voluntary. No compulsory education.

In a free society, if your child wants to have a lemonade stand, she has a lemonade stand. Nothing a local official or neighbor can do about it, as long as it’s on your own private property. If you want to drive a cab and offer people rides, you put “TAXI” on top and drive your cab and offer people rides. You don’t get a bureaucrat’s permission. You don’t pay the government a fee. You just do it.

And in a free society there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of self-defense, and due process.

Sadly, there is no room for any of those things in a socialist society.

Activist Post – ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS – Creative Commons 2020

Doh! Conservatives Reject Free Market Capitalism and LOVE Government Central Planning!

Especially in the immigration issue.

I was listening to one of the conservative/ultra-nationalist talk radio ditto-heads this morning, and he was once again foaming at the mouth over the immigration issue. The talk host was in full support of Donald Trump’s stepping up the nazi-like immigration police state, in which ICE and “Border Patrol Tactical Unit” storm troopers will take their S.W.A.T. goons into “sanctuary cities” to harass, terrorize, arrest or assault innocent people who have exercised their unalienable rights to freedom of movement and their right to find a better life for themselves and their families.

Regarding government-operated or funded “sanctuary cities,” they shouldn’t exist, because their operation is funded by taxpayers, i.e. involuntarily.

Instead, there should be freedom, in which volunteer organizations, charities, churches, businesses and residents should have the freedom to take people in if they want to. And they would be expected to take responsibility for their refugees, new workers, guests, etc. As long as people are peaceful. As long as no one is violating the persons or property of others, and that’s it.

When there is freedom, such sponsors, employers or benefactors would not be required to ask the government for permission, and their workers or refugees are not required to get government authorization to go to where they want to go. That is what socialist societies (such as Amerika) do. Alas, that is what “conservatives” want.

The police-state supporting conservatives are concerned about immigrants getting on government welfare. But, a society of freedom and free markets would have no government-imposed redistribution-of-wealth schemes. So the newcomers would not get on welfare, because there would be no government welfare redistribution schemes or handouts!

But most conservatives seem to be socialists, and love income taxation and redistribution just as much as liberals and progressives.

And they seem to love government central planning when it comes to labor and employment. In the immigration issue, conservatives are opposed to free markets, and love the idea of the central planners in Washington attempting to control who works where, and who may not work in Amerika or where they may not work, and whom employers may employ and may not employ.

So conservatives, at least the ones I hear on ditto-head radio, love the idea of government central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people. Which is impossible. As Perry Como might say, it’s just impossible.

For them, foreign people have to get government authorization to enter “our” country. But that’s socialism, not freedom.

Only in a socialist society are people required to get government authorization to live their lives, have a business and employ anyone they want to employ, or to move somewhere or to work somewhere.

Contrary to what the socialist conservatives want, in a free society you just do what you want and you live wherever you want, and you buy or sell property, rent a home or work at a place of employment, as long as you are peaceful. Just don’t trespass onto the private property of others.

But conservatives say that immigrants are “breaking into our country,” and compare the whole territory to a parcel of private property. Someone coming into “our” country without government authorization is “trespassing.”

But the territory as a whole is not a parcel of private property. No one owns the territory.

However, some people say that “we” the “citizens” are the owners. No, such an assertion is a myth and just not true. if someone owns the territory, then where is the deed with our names on it? Where in the Constitution or any law is it written that “citizens” are the owners of the territory as a whole?

And who would be the actual owners? Just taxpayers? Well, what about people who work but don’t make enough to be required to pay income taxes? What about foreign non-citizens who are here and who work but do pay income taxes? Do they share in such “ownership”?

The problem with such an assertion of this communistic territorial ownership by the “citizens” (or by the government on their behalf) is that, if it really were the case, then that would negate the principle of private property. You do not really own your private property if it exists on territory that is owned by a larger population. The parcels of property are no longer individual parcels of private property, and you the “owner” have to obey the orders of the larger community as far as what you may or may not do with or on “your” property.

Therefore, the anti-immigration conservatives are big on government central planning, some kind of communal ownership of property and the police state to enforce it, and not big at all on individualism, private property rights, free markets and voluntary exchange.

So what should conservatives really support in order to extract their irrationality from their hypocritical old noggins?

If the anti-foreigner nationalist conservatives are really concerned about “illegals” getting into “our” country, or criminal gangs such as MS-13, then first get rid of all foreign aid. No more federal tax-funded aid to any other countries or governments. That means no more U.S. funding of terrorist-sympathizing or drug lord-cahooting governments in Central or South America, from which many immigrants are fleeing.

And second, end the drug war. Drug prohibition causes the black market which incentivizes low-lifes to try to get people addicted to drugs and incentivizes such low-lifes to become drug pushers and drug traffickers, and the prohibition is what creates the drug lords, the cartels, the turf wars and gangs and violence that are driving innocent people and victims in those areas to flee to the U.S. Ending the war on drugs puts all that to a stop. No more drug pushers, drug traffickers, drug lords, cartels, turf wars and gangs.

And no more drug war police state, no more immigration police state, and no more Constitution-free borders.

I wish that conservatives would get with it as far as the freedom thing goes. Re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And maybe some other points I made in this post might help them. But, their support of the police state and socialist government central planning and their opposition to and contempt for freedom is really something we can do without.

Piketty Will Capitalize on Documentary Film of His “Capital in the 21st Century”

Robert Wenzel says a new capitalist-hate movie is out, a documentary based on Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the 21st Century, which promoted not lifting up the poor but taking down the wealthy. The truth is that with socialists and leftists such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, it’s all about envy and covetousness, it’s not about liberating the people so they have the freedom to do what they want with their lives, their abilities, labor and capital.

I’m sure that the capitalist-haters of this new film will appreciate their own capitalist benefits when they receive earnings from the film!

Related to all this, I had written a short blog on this about 10 years ago. A response to Michael Moore’s mistaken label of the 2008 Wall Street Bailout as a “capitalist” act by government. (Of course, if I wrote that now I think I would word some of it a little differently).

In that post, I wrote,

Capitalism is an economic system which recognizes those individual rights and private property rights and the right of freedom of trade and commerce. By its very nature, a socialist system violates those rights of private property and voluntary free trade, and, since the means of production includes the people, it therefore is a system of collective ownership of individual people and thus erases any idea of “individual” rights.

In socialism, the individual is owned by the collective and thus does not have any right to one’s own life and liberty. In socialism, the individual is a slave of the collective and of the state; only in capitalism does freedom of the individual exist.

Michael Moore does not realize that it is because of capitalist freedom that he earns a big profit from his films, from the people who voluntarily pay money to see them. That is an example of voluntary free trade among individuals that the force of socialism destroys.

However, because our country is a “mixed economy,” with some capitalist free trade allowed by the government, and some socialist-forced government confiscation of private wealth and earnings, half of Mr. Moore’s earnings are forcibly confiscated by the armed force of government and then redistributed to Wall St. executives and Big Banks and Big Finance and Big Mortgage, etc. That’s Socialism, NOT “capitalism”!

Mr. Moore and others would benefit by reading Mises’s Human Action and Socialism, Rand’s Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, and Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.