Skip to content

Category: Free market

Immigration and the Anti-Capitalistic Socialists on Conservative Talk Radio

I was listening to “Pat and Stu” filling in for Glenn Beck the other day, and they seemed to be glad that the Trump administration has cracked down on “illegal immigrants” by raiding places of employment. The talk radio Beck flunkies were even sounding like liberals in their show of concern for the “below-minimum wage” work the illegal people were being made to do.

I thought I was going to toss my cookies. These conservatives are pathetic. They’ll say anything and make anything up to justify their irrational anti-free market, anti-capitalistic mentality, and their anti-foreigner tribalism and collectivism.

As Jacob Hornberger and Robert Wenzel point out, the immigrants who were raided and arrested were not the “rapists and murderers” that Donald Trump was complaining about throughout the campaign in 2016. These people were arrested at their jobs, in places of employment, not the welfare office to get on the dole. They aren’t out on the streets selling drugs or engaged in sex trafficking like the now late Jeffrey Epstein allegedly. They are working and honestly providing for themselves and their families.

These immigrants are not criminals. But the people who are criminals are those government goons who are harassing them, violently seizing and detaining them and throwing them in a cage, just because the workers didn’t get the permission of the government to work where they wanted to work and attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Socialism includes having to get government authorization to do what you want to do or go to where you want to go. So, like Rush Limbaugh and Howie Carr and the rest of the ignorant ditto-heads on the radio, “Pat and Stu” on the Beck show certainly qualify as socialists.

In contrast, a true capitalist believes in the free market, in which people sell their labor, goods or services to others and it’s between these traders as long as they are peaceful. They don’t get a government bureaucrat’s authorization or permission, like in the old Soviet Union, Cuba or New York City.

More Articles

Michael Rozeff thinks Elizabeth Warren is a communist.

The Hill with an article on DOJ releasing notes from official Bruce Ohr’s Russia probe interviews.

Bonnie Kristian says we don’t need the Taliban’s cooperation to end the U.S. government’s war in Afghanistan.

Caitlin Johnstone on calls for new “terrorism” laws.

Bob Murphy lecture on private military defense.

Richard Enos on infant vaccine death testimony mounting as we continue dissolving the illusions.

Aaron Kesel on Anonymous Bites Back radio show strikes against censorship.

Lee Friday says that no one has a right to a good reputation.

And Stu Tarlowe says that “Red Flag” laws just legitimize “swatting.”

Democrats Debate: Who Is Most Control Freak?

The Democrats running for President had more debates this week i.e. it was a kook fest, and I didn’t watch them because I stopped watching television in the mid-1990s. But I have heard many, many excerpts all week on the radio talk shows and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

I don’t know where to start, so I’ll just start with “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg. Well, so far the name “Pete” has not been good for Presidential aspirations (see Pete Wilson and Pete du Pont for instance). Let’s hope the trend continues here.

Mayor Pete tried to use a Bible verse as well as his economic ignorance to shame opponents of the minimum wage to accept his promise to create more unemployment by increasing the minimum wage.

He also made it a racial issue. But when the minimum wage goes up, that causes employers to have to cut those entry-level, low-skilled jobs because the employers can’t afford to pay those workers a wage that’s higher than what their jobs are worth. That is why we get higher unemployment, and entire businesses closing down, when minimum wage goes up by law.

The people most affected by this government-imposed mandatory minimum wage are the teenagers and young adults who are trying to get their very first work experience, trying to get their foot in the door. And it especially affects minorities in the cities.

So Buttigieg and the other interventionists are taking opportunities away from those young people. And teenagers (and many young adults as well) don’t need a “living wage,” by the way, because they are being supported by their parents. But they do need work experience, and if they don’t have it by age 20 or 22, they shouldn’t complain about not being able to find a higher-paying job after high school or college.

I think that most of these lying, dishonest politicians actually know these facts, but they pretend otherwise just for the sake of getting people to vote for them.

And Buttigieg is the one who criticized Donald Trump for getting out of the Vietnam War, but Buttigieg didn’t criticize the Vietnam War itself! Buttigieg criticized Trump for NOT going to some foreign country to kill innocent civilians for no good reason! Meanwhile, I think that each and every young person who got out of going to Vietnam or who went to Canada to avoid it should be PRAISED! They are heroes for not going over there and killing innocent people!

But Mayor Pete is a warmonger and doesn’t see it that way. Hmm, I wonder how many innocent civilians he killed in Afghanistan, a country that HE invaded along with the rest of the U.S. military, and for no good reason. Let’s hope the answer is zero. (Unlike the young Americans who were forced to invade and bomb and murder in Vietnam involuntarily because of the draft, the modern U.S. invaders and bombers and murderers in foreign countries have been doing so voluntarily.)

Anyway, I liked hearing Tulsi Gabbard pointing out that as a prosecutor and California attorney general Kamala Harass oversaw 1,500 marijuana arrests, and that she “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so,” and that she “kept people in prison beyond their sentences to keep them as cheap labor for the state of California.”

And, I would add, Harris’s fascist anti-“truancy” law in which she arrested and jailed the parents of kids who missed too much school, i.e. were absent too many times from their mandatory government-indoctrination prison camps. (Just like the Germans, Kamala. Yay!) And just as Gabbard says that Harass laughed about jailing marijuana users, she also laughed about jailing the “truant” kids’ parents.

But there seem to be many libertarians who like Tulsi Gabbard for her looks anti-war positions, but she shows a lot of ignorance in that area as well. For instance, she says that the U.S. military shouldn’t be over in those foreign places for “regime change,” but to fight and “defeat al-Qaeda.” And she believes that Islamic fanaticism is to blame for the terrorism. So, she’s just as brainwashed as many people are since 9/11. She doesn’t seem to get that what causes the terrorism in the first place has been the U.S. government’s invading and bombing those countries over there, since well before 9/11 (see this and this).

Being extreme authoritarians, the Democrats seem to want to impose “Medicare for All” on the rest of us. They say they want to fix the medical care system, despite the fact that all their previous interventions have failed. For example, ObamaCare has been in effect for years now, so why is there still a problem?

The medical care system in America was the best in the world before Medicare and Medicaid came in and distorted the markets in medical care. The free market provided people with not only many choices, but because of the lack of government intrusions into medical care, doctors were financially able to provide free care for people who couldn’t afford it or who didn’t have insurance. Dr. Ron Paul was one of those who treated lower income people including minorities, for free. There were MANY doctors like that, way back when. Now, not so much.

But the truth is, these politicians don’t care about people being able to get medical care, as they propose all these terrible things just to get people to vote for them, and that’s it! As FDR said about Social Security or LBJ said about Medicare (or both), these kinds of government hand-outs are to ensure that more people will vote for THEM, for Democrats for all of eternity. That’s all that matters to these people, power and control. Expanded government powers gives them plenty of control.

More and more these power-mad politicians want to take choices away from the people, they want to make private insurance illegal (and soon private-practice medical care) and impose a one-size-fits-all scheme onto everyone, whether they like it or not.

The reason these government worshipers want so much control and want to force you into a “Medicare for All” scheme is that they want access to all your private medical information. They want “cradle to grave” control in medical care, and “cradle to career” tracking and surveillance in the young people as well.

The control freaks, including every hippie freak weirdo at these Democrat debates, want to intrude into every aspect of everybody’s private life, to “prevent discrimination,” to make sure everybody works toward a better social credit score like in China, to make sure that there is “no inequality” in society. Why? Because they are brainwashed social engineering fanatics. And that is why “Medicare for All” with these extremely crazy people.

And what the political elites really want is a two-tier medical system, in which the political class, their henchmen and all their little hangers-on will get the first-class care when they want it, and the rest of us get whatever the apparatchiks think we deserve, just like in the old Soviet Union.

It is just like the two-tiered judicial system we have now. Powerless people who are accused of something by the government get thrown in jail for life, while the elites, the political class get away with whatever they want to get away with. (See Jeffrey Epstein, Comey, Brennan, Lois Lerner, et al.)

And besides Mayor Pete, Kamala Harass, and Tulsi Gabtard, there are the scummy or just plain crazy crackpots, including “Beto” O’Rourke, Jay Inslee, Cory Shnooker, Gillibrand and Biden. But Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are outright communists. They seem to just want the government to have complete control over all industries, labor and employment, and property just like in the old Soviet Union. I’ve never seen a bunch of crazies, ignoramuses and psychopaths as we have in this bunch. They are just as bad as the Rethuglicans.

Speaking of the Rethugs and Trump, their intrusion policies of trade tariffs, debt and deficit spending cause, among other things, higher prices for consumers and thus they lower the standard of living for the society. Trump’s tax cuts, which expire in a few years for individuals, are only helpful in the short term and don’t mean very much in the long term, because Trump and the Republicans refuse to cut spending. They are irresponsible criminals, just like the thieving Democrats.

And Trump’s immigration and drug war police state are further eroding freedom and prosperity in America. Why don’t Democrats say anything about dismantling the Amerikan police state? The NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, TSA, and more. They all need to go. But Democrats love the police state, as that is what their SovietCare program is all about.

Sadly, we never, ever hear anything from Democrats (or Rethugs) about freedom. Just more and more government control, and more and more police state. (Oh, and “Racist, Racist, Racist!” etc.) They all suck. Don’t vote for any of them, or for Trump. In fact, don’t vote at all!

More News and Commentary

Murray Rothbard on altruism vs. materialism in market exchange.

Shikha Dalmia says that conservative nationalists, not immigrants, are having trouble assimilating in America.

Larry Johnson on understanding the roots of the Obama coup against Trump.

John Solomon explains how Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann’s offer to an oligarch could boomerang on DOJ.

Thomas Knapp discusses the purposes of homeschooling.

Walter Block on whether or not labor can be owned under libertarian law.

And Moon of Alabama says the U.S. stunt in Hong Kong will make other issues more difficult.

Bureaucrats Uneasy Over Cryptocurrencies

Monetary central planning bureaucrats all over the world including U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are getting more paranoid over the popularity of cryptocurrencies.

Mnuchin held a press conference this week and made it perfectly clear that the gubmint will not tolerate people trying to keep their financial activities anonymous. And he doesn’t like the new proposed Facebook digital currency “Libra.”

Government bureaucrats can’t stand the idea of not being able to track the people’s activities, especially their financial activities. Control is very important to control freaks.

Besides control and tracking, the government’s monopoly over money, easy money and easy credit, is their way to legally and stealthily steal from the people or parasite off them. So this reminded me of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s article on why the State demands control of money, which I very much recommend.

More News and Commentary

Donald Boudreaux on immigration and the many ways in which a nation is not a house.

Thomas DiLorenzo explains why male soccer players make more than female soccer players.

Scott Horton on fighting the last war.

Charles Burris on slavery reparations.

Frank Shostak asks, When will the stock market respond to 2016’s liquidity collapse?

Lance Roberts on Judy Shelton, the Fed, and the realization of a liquidity trap.

And Jeff Tucker on the magic of Tanglewood and its astonishing success.

Police State, Lying U.S. Gov. Bureaucrats, And Dishonest Big Tech

Matt Agorist on Police State thugs: police detaining an entire bar, sealing off exits, forcing everyone to submit to records checks, with no reason to suspect anyone of anything or any suspicion that any crime has been committed. “Because we can.”

Mac Slavo on mass surveillance: the Pentacon can now ID you by your heartbeat with a laser.

Moon of Alabama on Western news agencies mistranslating Iranian president’s speech, not the first time such “error” happens.

Col. Ann Wright on scenario fulfillment: Why should we believe U.S. gov on location of drone shot down by Iran?

Sayer Ji on Google scrubbing natural health websites form search results.

James Bovard on Democrat debate #2.

Veronique de Rugy says that markets, not politicians, control the law of supply and demand.

And Courtland Culver says, heed James Madison, not Donald Trump and Candace Owens, on free speech. (Incidentally, why do people worship a flag? Just askin’.)

Conservatives Love Socialism: Immigration

Last week there was another thought-provoking post by Jacob Hornberger on the immigration issue. He notes how conservatives tend to abandon their alleged advocacy of private property when they try to suggest that America’s territory has some sort of common ownership and the American people have a right via the U.S. government to restrict travel across the borders.

Conservatives often use the national-home argument to justify their support of a system of immigration controls. They say that America is a “national home,” one owned and controlled by the U.S. government. As the owner of the “home,” the argument goes, the U.S. government has the “right” to lock the door and determine who to let into its home. Conservatives sometimes say to me, “You lock your front door, Jacob, and you don’t let everyone into your home. Why shouldn’t the federal government have the ‘right’ to do the same with our home?”

In fact, I heard these same exact words uttered by talk radio personality Jeff Kuhner just this morning. If you’ve heard Michael Savage, you probably have heard Jeff Kuhner filling in for him. But now Kuhner has his own local show in Boston, so he can bless Bostonians with his own fingernails-against-the-chalkboard nationalism idiocy.

Anyway, Hornberger goes on to write that America is not a “national home,” but a society of private property, in which the private property owners have a right to invite whomever they want onto their own private property, or to exclude anyone they want from their property. That applies to our homes, businesses, etc.

But Kuhner and his idol Donald Trump, et al. don’t get this concept. They seem to think that the whole territory is communally owned by the people, which would negate the idea of private property. And given that these so-called conservatives are collectivists and authoritarians, they obediently support the U.S. government in Washington as the true owner-caretaker of the territory as a whole. When either the centralized government or the entire population of “citizens” have ownership of the territory, then they have a de facto ownership of everything within the territory, in my view.

And I am going to go further than what Jacob Hornberger writes (as I have done so previously), regarding the socialism aspect of the nationalists’ policies of collective ownership of the territory. Yes, it actually is the nationalists and conservatives who are the socialists on this issue, while the libertarian advocates of “open borders” are the capitalists, the advocates of free markets. (However, those on the Left who want government sanctuary cities and government-forced welfare for immigrants are the other side of the same socialist coin, not free market.)

Socialism being government ownership of the means of production, and given that one of the most important means of production is the people, the nationalists like Kuhner and Trump support all the socialist government controls which attempt to control the movements of millions of people, which is impossible.

The nationalists and conservatives say that foreigners must get a government bureaucrat’s permission or authorization to go somewhere to work. But, if one must have government authorization to do what you want to do, then that means you are not the owner of your own life and your labor. The government is the de facto owner.

And the same thing applies to when a business owner must get government permission or authorization to hire someone that businessman wants to hire. That means the government is really the ultimate owner of the business. Ownership is control. If the owner-on-paper businessman really were the owner of his business, then he is the ultimate decider on whom to hire and whom not to hire. So these certainly are socialist policies of government, they are authoritarian and disrespectful to private property rights and the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Some people such as the nationalism fanatics say that one must have “citizenship” to be able to “get in to the country,” and otherwise are “breaking into the country,” etc. And they compare that to a burglar breaking into your home. But those are two different things, as mentioned above. But the idea of citizenship itself is government ownership of the people. To have “citizenship” means that you have government authorization, which is what socialism is. So, these concepts and policies of nationalism and citizenship really are policies of socialism. They certainly are not policies of free market capitalism.

One last thing about the conservatives is their short-sightedness. They see that there is an immigration problem, and so they support all these socialist government controls. They never seem to ask what is causing the problem in the first place. One major cause is the war on drugs, which is itself another socialist scheme. Another problem the conservatives refuse to address is the welfare state. A system of forced income-theft and wealth redistribution is immoral and in fact, criminal. But conservatives don’t want to get rid of the welfare state, because they believe in it, because they love socialism.

And finally, some people call the government immigration controls and the drug war “fascist” policies, with their police state and all that. And they are fascist policies. Fascism is a system of government controls although property and industry are still privately owned. However, as I have stated, ownership is control, and if you supposedly own property or a business, and in fact own your life and your labor, if you don’t control those things and the government is the final and ultimate authority with control, then you don’t really own those things. The government is the de facto owner, so really fascism is just a form of socialism with the pretense of private ownership.

In 2020, Can the Libertarian Party Nominate a Truth-Teller for President?

In my recent post on some of the prospective Libertarian Party candidates for President of the United State, I mentioned Jacob Hornberger, who is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation. I think he has not yet made a formal announcement on a run for President. But he does have a campaign website.

Unlike Gary Johnson and Bob Barr, Jacob Hornberger is not afraid to tell the truth about the evil of American militarism and criminal military invasions abroad, the evil drug war, and the evil of taxation and welfare redistributionism, all of which have contributed to America’s downfall.

For instance, Hornberger has a post on his campaign blog, unafraid to tell the truth about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Congressman Seth Moulton, two Democrat war veterans running for President.

In the blog post, Hornberger mentions Moulton and Buttigieg’s experiences in the U.S. military as invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively. And that this week both candidates have criticized Donald Trump for “faking a disability” to get out of a military enslavement to kill innocent people in Vietnam. Yet, as Hornberger points out, neither Moulton nor Buttigieg has any criticism for the criminal wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan that George W. Bush started and that were carried out by the U.S. military.

The two Democrat candidates clearly do not see the forest for the trees. They are criticizing someone for not invading another country for no good reason, and for not bombing and murdering their people.

While Hornberger doesn’t mention this in that particular blog post, we can get an idea of Buttigieg and Moulton’s warped kind of thinking from their views on domestic policies. They are clearly kooks, just like their fellow Democrat brethren and sistren Democrats for President.

Both Buttigieg and Moulton support the “Green New Deal,” because they are either total ignoramuses or they are just a couple of sniveling dishonest weasels who know that the society couldn’t possibly get rid of cars, trucks, planes and cows and doing so would end up impoverishing and wiping out just about the entire society. So, given that both are quite intelligent people, supposedly, I think they’re just “playing along” with the other Democrats on that issue.

Mayor Pete supports “Medicare for All” because he doesn’t understand why, like ObamaCare, that won’t work in the real world. (Hornberger, by the way, had a recent post on his regular blog describing why Medicare and Medicaid have been the root cause of America’s health care crisis.)

However, Seth Moulton does not support “Medicare for All,” and instead supports the so-called “public option.” In my view, this is probably because Moulton is a slithering, slimy sleazebag who really does want “single payer” i.e. SovietCare but would impose it though the back door.

With a “public option,” we can have our private health insurance if we want it but at the same time a government-run health care program would be available as an “option.” Here, government doesn’t have to worry about the voluntary participation of consumers and instead gets its funding through taxation, which is involuntary, i.e. coercive. So, while the government-run “public option” health care program wouldn’t have to worry about profit and loss and the bottom line to remain functioning, the private sector insurers would still have those extra pressures of competition. Thus, the government-run program will drive the private insurers out of business. There is nothing optional about a “public option.” Eventually the government will be the only insurer. i.e. SovietCare.

So given their dishonest positions on those issues, I am not surprised that both Buttigieg and Moulton have no criticism for the criminal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and instead criticize Donald Trump for avoiding Vietnam, which people should have avoided, either out of moral conscience or to save themselves from being unjustly crippled for life, psychologically traumatized or killed for no good reason.

How many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan did Buttigieg and Moulton murder? They were the invaders of those other countries, not the other way around. The inhabitants of those lands had every right to shoot back to defend their homes and families from slaughter by the invading U.S. government marauders.

Now, Jacob Hornberger’s saying and writing truthful things about the crimes of government and bureaucracy might not go over too well with many people who have been bamboozled with the religion of American Exceptionalism.

Even in 2020, I don’t know whether the American people are ready to hear the truth about such things. It’s not just a population indoctrinated from their 12 years of government schools, but much of the indoctrination since 9/11 is due to the constant 24-7 propaganda from the goddamned mainstream media! The warmongering “liberal” media! If we look at the NFL and other sports games and their military tributes and America’s churches and their sickening un-Christian military worship, as well as that in pop culture in Amerika, I think it would take a lot of convincing speeches and truth-telling to get people to consider deprogramming themselves after years of obedience and deference to the almighty Amerikan State.

And given how the Libertarian Party convention in 2016 seemed to consist of so many statist sheeple in their nominating of Gary Johnson the pothead, I don’t even know whether it’s possible that the Libertarian Party can return to their being the “Party of Principle” ever again, i.e. the party of Ron Paul and Harry Browne.

Anyway, Jacob Hornberger also has a thing or two to say about “Tariff Man,” Donald Trump. And of course, abolishing the FBI. Yay!

News and Commentary

José Niño on why the elites look down on manual labor.

Robert Wenzel discusses Alex Tabarrok’s preferring more government interventionism than less in Venezuela, and Tabarrok’s misunderstanding of what is socialist and what is anarchist.

Jacob Hornberger says, Impeach Trump but only for the right reason.

Per Bylund says that tariffs are attacks on property rights and freedom.

Laurence Vance asks, Who actually pays for tariffs?

Robert Murphy debunks 3 modern arguments for tariffs.

Ron Paul says that the Violence Against Women Act does violence to the Constitution.

And Ammo.com with an article on the corresponding rise of antidepressants and mass shootings.

More Important Articles

Carl Watner with an article on the State’s control over the medical industry: Life, liberty and quackery from a voluntaryist perspective.

Dr. Mercola asks, What’s the truth behind MMR vaccine testing?

Dr. Marilyn Singleton says that Medicare for All kills doctors’ freedom of conscience.

George F. Smith on the importance of exposing and challenging the monopoly of the State.

Mac Slavo on “cultural schizophrenia”: U.S. media no longer report facts, but appeal to emotions.

And Eric Margolis says that Trump should stop playing with fire.